Custom Search

HAL TURNER UPDATE: July 9, 2009 / Murder Threats & First Amendment

UPDATE 7/9/09

Hal is en route to Chicago. He was unexpectedly put in shackles and handcuffs, and removed from Essex County Jail very early Wednesday morning. His destination was unknown to him at this time. He was driven to an Air Force Base and put on a military plane, where they all sat on the runway for 2 hours. The plane finally took off, landed several hours later, and he was taken to a Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City, where he awaits transfer to Chicago.

They never even let him call his family or attorney before they took him. He is not in good spirits at all. In New Jersey, he was able to see his family; but, now, being so far away, he can't even do that. We are worried and pray for his safety.

Donations are coming in very slowly. We have received approximately 10% of our $45,000 goal. We have a long way to go. We thank all of you that have sent donations, prayers, and support in this trying time. Without your help, we will not be able to pay for his defense. We deeply appreciate your love, support and prayers. PLEASE, KEEP THOSE DONATIONS COMING!

Hal is fighting, not only to protect his own First Amendment rights, but to protect yours as well! Hey, you media people...THIS MEANS YOU TOO!

Please send your donations to:P. Turner

1906 Paterson Plank Road

north Bergen, NJ 07047

We are also setting up a cash-in account so donations can be accepted on-line.

Thank you again for your support. God Bless You All!

The family of Hal Turner

family-of-hal-turner.blogspot.com/2009/07/update-7909.html

Update July 10th 2009

#1 First Amendment Attorney in US backs Hal Turner

Martin Garbus, one of the country's top First Amendment attorneys, has joined Hal Turner's Legal Defense Team. He is joining Michael Orozco of Bailey & Orozco, LLC. Together, Mr. Orozco and Mr. Garbus will make an unbeatable team. We have every confidence that Hal will prevail.

Click HERE for Martin Garbus' article which appears in the Huffington Post on July 7, 2009.

Hal's defense will cost a lot of money. We desperately need your help. Remember that your First Amendment Rights are at stake here too. If you like being able to speak or write your opinion about something without fear, please help Hal.

You can donate by clicking on the CHIPIN box on the left of this page, or you can send cash, check, or money order to:

P. Turner

1906 Paterson Plank Road

North Bergen, NJ 07047

Thank you again for all your support and prayers.

Hal's Family

Murder Threats and First Amendment

by Martin Garbus

July 7th 2009

Martin Garbus is a Trial lawyer, author of six books on the Supreme Court and constitutional law

A very important First Amendment case, one that may soon reach the Supreme Court, is beginning its legal path.

Here's how it started. On June 2, 2009, Hal Turner, a radio talk show host considered by civil rights organizations to be a white supremacist, wrote on his blog that three named Federal Appeals Court judges, who upheld a handgun ban, deserved to die. The addresses, phone numbers, and work place locations were given to the reader. "These judges deserve to die. . . ." "Observe the Constitution or die," he wrote. He never said he would kill the judges and never attempted to. When arrested, he had a shotgun, 3 handguns and 150 hollow point bullets. He claimed to have a permit for the guns, but the bullets are illegal. He was brought to court in an orange jumpsuit, handcuffs and shackles. Bail was set at $200,000 -- he is in a Newark jail.

He had previously been arrested for threatening lawmakers involved in a decision relating to the Catholic Church. He has a long history of attempted incitement, but so far as I know, no one has been incited by him.

Twenty-two days later, even though apparently no attempt was made to damage the lives of the three judges by Turner or anyone else, Turner was arrested. He will undoubtedly assert a First Amendment claim when he appears in court next Thursday.

The federal government's criminal complaint states that the charges will range from death threats to attempted assault to attempted murder.

The case has two separate elements. First, the arrest of Turner on the basis that he might kill the judges. Secondly, the arrest of Turner because he might incite others to kill. I believe his arrest and conviction on either ground is not justified.

Under existing First Amendment law, he is probably protected. Should he be? Do we have to wait until a murder attempt actually gets underway? Does existing First Amendment law have to be changed, and does there have to be a law that more particularly deals with "true threats"?

There are an increasing number of threats that emanate from right-wing radio, television hosts and bloggers, now presenting important First Amendment issues anew. Whichever case goes to the United States Supreme Court will undoubtedly create new law.

Nothing has happened to the three judges, although we cannot assume something will not happen. For me, this is a very troublesome and difficult case.

If we imagine that instead of Mr. Turner, a Vietnam or Iraq war protester says on television, or radio or his blog, that the president deserves to die. He says, "The blood of the president must flow, and his failure to protect democracy requires that he die." It would be protected. If he says it before an armed mob standing outside the White House ready to rush the guards, it would not be protected.

Present First Amendment law arises mostly out of cases dealing with the threats of mob violence. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, a case decided in June 1969, exactly 40 years ago, where there was a Ku Klux Klan mob armed with shotguns, rifles and ammunition, the Court stated the test is whether the speech to the mob was incitement to imminent lawless action.

The prohibition against falsely "Shouting Fire" in a crowded theatre is the ordinary person's understanding of what First Amendment law tests are. It is the popular way of describing the test that the danger must be imminent. Shouting Fire is the title of an HBO film that is presently airing (full disclosure: my daughter, Liz Garbus, directs it, and I am in it) and specifically deals with some of these issues. It dramatically shows the possibility of theatergoers being trampled after "Shouting Fire" is cried and why the speaker can be punished. The danger is clearly imminent.

But Mr. Turner's case is different, and as the years go by, threats of all kinds will become more common in all media. They seem today to come from the Right. Joe the Plumber recently said Senator Dodd of Connecticut should be hanged.

The Internet both permits it and encourages the maker of the "true threat" for it now permits wilder language than the regular media and it can reach significantly more people. And the threat of course gets further exposure when the news media reports an arrest.

In the Hal Turner case, you have a specific threat aimed at a specific person giving specific information on how to find that person. In effect, so, too, did Joe the Plumber. It is true that once one's name is given, the Internet Googler can probably have gotten the names and addresses of those being threatened (maybe not as easy with judges) but Turner's placing it there makes it easier for a potential killer who is encouraged by having this extra information and endorsement.

But Mr. Turner (and Joe the Plumber) are part of the political dialogue of the country. Turner is not a private person saying that another private person should be killed, where the test must be different. We presume Mr. Turner has a constituency that may or may not act on his threats. It is also true that the potential killer may ask if it's so important for the judge to die, why didn't Mr. Turner do it or try and arrange it. It may be true that even before Mr. Turner posted the information, a number of other people may have had the same thoughts. But Mr. Turner's language may push some people over the edge.

Some scholars are seeking to create a new test for cases such as Mr. Turner's. They are trying to create a new way of approaching the particularized true threat law. They might conclude that it requires both a subjective and objective test. The threat would need to be very fact specific. Did he specifically intend that the person be killed, did he have reasonable belief that it would lead to a killing, and was his belief reasonable that the person would be killed? Mr. Turner might fail that test. I reject this approach. I reject any test that minimizes the concept of "imminent" as a necessity in order to avoid the First Amendment.

I find it a very troubling and difficult case.

A legal truism is that bad cases make bad law. The exact test of what is and what is not a true threat will certainly be developed more carefully in the next few years. Nonetheless, I believe even if the facts alleged against Turner are true, the First Amendment should be available as a defense.

Martin Garbus is a First Amendment lawyer.

Martin Garbus's Current Case Load

No mention of Hal Turner yet?

Martin Garbus is one of the country's leading trial lawyers. Mr. Garbus aggressively represents his clients in litigation in the courts and in the media. He has appeared before the United States Supreme Court as well as the highest state and federal courts in the nation. His devotion to ethics, justice and the law has earned him respect among the legal community and beyond as well as prominent awards. Time Magazine has named him "legendary . . . one of the best trial lawyers in the country," while Newsweek , the National Law Journal and other media agree that Mr. Garbus is America's "most prominent First Amendment lawyer," with an "extraordinarily diverse practice." The National Law Journal named him one of the country's top ten litigators.

Notable among the many cases Mr. Garbus is currently handling are the following:

* Represents Terry McMillan in a First Amendment case with accusations against a lawyer.

* Represents a New York Times journalist sued by Jane Pauley.

* Martin Garbus represents Don Imus in a dispute with CBS.

Recently, Mr. Garbus prepared to appear in Federal Court before a jury in a copyright infringement suit against hip-hop and rap star, Eminem (also known as Marshall Mathers). Mr. Garbus represented a composer whose music was copied without authorization and used in the song Kill You , the first track on The Marshall Mathers LP . That album, Eminem's second, enjoyed commercial sales of over 16,000,000 CDs, making it number one in CD sales in 2001. The case was settled.

Currently, Mr. Garbus is also representing employees in a class action employment discrimination suit challenging President Bush's "faith based" initiative and flight attendants in a labor dispute against their union and American Airlines. Both cases are to be tried in Federal Court. Mr. Garbus will try another jury case in New York State Court that involves damage to a $20,000,000 painting by one of America's greatest artists. In a recent personal injury suit against American Airlines, Mr. Garbus won a jury award of $26,000,000, one of the largest awards at that time.

Mr. Garbus most recently was confronted by yet another challenge from a then-unfamiliar source, the Internet. Pioneering the legal future of the digital age, Mr. Garbus represented Eric Corley, The Electronic Frontier Foundation in the Open Source Movement in the first copyright case to be tried under the new Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That landmark intellectual property case, involving the Motion Picture Association of America, became a battle where First Amendment and copyright values clashed, permanently affecting the art, movie, music and DVD industry, including the rights of MP3 and IPOD owners.

He is presently working on a future book about his experiences in China since 1976, which involved, among other things, 12 visits, representing clients in Beijing through a Chinese office, and teaching about intellectual property and copyright law at a leading Chinese university. More information about his books can be found here.

Four Winds 10 - News