Originally Posted by Alex Linder
No, it doesn't serve him right because he didn't say anything illegal.
Don't let that fact get lost in the hubbub.
Hal Turner said NOTHING illegal. He knew the legal limits of free speech better than anybody, and he stayed on the legal side of the line. As did Bill White.
I defend both of their free speech, and I am outraged by these cheapjack prosecutors who think they can follow the law only when it suits their interests.
I think Turners case is different from Whites. Bill White posted the name, home address and phone number of a juror who helped convict Matt Hale of "soliciting the murder" of a federal judge. However, White did not directly propose violence against the Chicago juror. He simply posted an address and phone number. Even a first year law student could see that this falls under the 1st Amendment, hence the dismissal of charges against White by the feds.They simply had no case and they knew it.
Hal on the other took it a step further. He posted the work addresses of three federal judges as well as their photos with a note that home addresses would follow. Also included was a map of Chicago’s federal courthouse highlighting its “anti-truck-bomb” pylons. Then he said, "Let me be the first to say this plainly. These judges deserve to be killed".
That's a little more serious and may or may not fall under the 1st Amendment. Imo it's still free speech but the feds and a jury might see it different. That may be the reason why Hal's trying to weasel his way out of it by admitting to being at one time or another a federal informant. He's worried so he's saying..."hey guys, I was only kidding, didn't I work for you a couple years ago ratting out people you don't like"?
Hals in deeper shit than White was.