Finally, death-speech is getting some attention.
Calling Hal Turner "a danger to the community," a federal judge in Chicago has denied bail to the Web talk show host who has been charged with threatening three U.S. appellate court judges.
You might remember this guy:
In a June 2 posting on his Web site, called Turner Radio Network, Turner said 7th Circuit Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook and Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer "deserve to be killed" for their ruling in the handgun case that day. In a June 3 follow-up post, Turner provided the names, work addresses, phone numbers and photos of the judges.
Illustrative, I think, that the 7th isn't a particularly progressive circuit.
If you're not with 'em, you're agin' 'em, I guess. More below.
I'm not too familiar with Bauer, but Easterbrook and Posner are not real warm-hearted types. Posner (who, in a delicious coincidence, looks remarkably like the Simpson's Mr. Skinner) is an especially logical thinker. I often disagree with him, but "dispassionate" would certainly be one of his "words that describe me best."
Why Turner and not Beck or Limbaugh? It's web. That, and Mr. Turner was especially persistent in his incitement, and much too unequivocal. He hasn't yet learned the value of a dog-whistle.
At Turner's arraignment hearing on July 28, Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Hogan argued that Turner should remain in custody based, in part, on the fact that he continued to threaten authorities even after his arrest. Hogan said that while Turner was in custody in New Jersey, he called in additional postings naming three FBI agents who interviewed him. He called in those postings despite court restrictions on his Internet use.
"Inveterate" is the word I believe we're looking for here.
This, on the other hand is succinct, and something I could stand to hear more of:
The defendant is ordered to be "detained as a danger to the community pending further court proceedings," Ashman said in a one-sentence order.
I hope that soon we'll be reading about other death-talkers in similar straits. Like the guy who calls in death threats over healthcare reform. Or the simians who offer "2nd Amendment retribution" to people with a different take on things.
Predictably,
Turner's attorney, Michael Orozco of Newark, N.J.-based Bailey & Orozco, has filed a motion to dismiss the charges, saying they violate his client's First Amendment right to express his opinions on his Web site and that nothing on the site was "a true threat."
"Hey! It was just jokes! I was kidding!"
Sound like someone you know? But hey, ol' Glen understands how to whistle. Don't actually call for violence. Just talk about what a good thing it would be if there was some.
All this first amendment piffle from the right is, as we know, grad A crapola. But it's the kind of specious (well, if you're brain dead) justification that appeals in a nation that's forgotten how to think. Freedom doesn't mean anarchy and freedom of speech doesn't mean a shouting match. In one of the few acts of hers with which I totally agree, Pelosi was right on the money when she characterized all this as "unAmerican."
I couldn't agree more. In fact, I would go one better and say that, along with acts like Beck's and, to the degree that they're part of an organized campaign, Turner's, it's Treason (with, yes, a capital "T").
Why treason? Because this isn't dissent. It isn't argument or debate. It's negation.
A pluralistic society can withstand any ideology but one: that which insists on no ideology but itself. The only political stance that is absolutely unacceptable in an open democracy (to which we still cling), is one that will brook no compromise, no difference, no alternative.
What you are seeing today is a transition. The Republican Party has been plugging its ears and shouting "I won't hear you." Now, they are taking their fists out of their ears and putting them in your face and saying, "I won't let you speak."
If you still identify with this party, when these are its methods, that means you.
It's a fine line between clever and stupid a dog whistle and incitement to violence. And I'm all for having that line.
I'm also in favor of judicial vigilance, and of bringing the hammer down on those who cross it.
I also think you can be within your First Amendment rights, and act treasonously.