I'm sure the idea of bloggers has journalistic greats
like Edward R. Murrow and Irv Kupcinet flipping over in their graves at
the idea of journalism without borders or rules.
Maybe they're not, maybe the idea of the blogger is
what the founding fathers of our country had in mind when they drafted
the constitution, pure freedom of speech. Instead of standing on soap
boxes, we are on the internet, sharing our news, ideas and passions.
But when does passion run amok? If we are the new
era of journalists, don't we need to follow some codes of conduct or
set of rules, or is the internet the Wild West for anyone with a modem?
Take the case of Hal Turner. Turner, an occasional
talk show host on internet radio and blogger, was arrested today by
the FBI in his New Jersey home on charges he threatened to murder three
federal appeals court judges in Chicago following their recent ruling
upholding handgun bans.
According to the U.S. attorney's office, postings on
Turner's web site included photos of the judges and addresses for them,
with statements such as: "Let me be the first to say this plainly;
These judges deserve to be killed"
Does Turner have the right to shroud himself in the
First Amendment and be free to say what he feels, despite the
possibility of doing physical harm to these judges as well as emotional
harm to their families and friends.
Or is he just a loud mouth creep, who should be thrown in the slammer or worse yet, have his internet service disconnected.
The Feds. think he's dangerous and a threat. Turner,
47, was charged with threatening to assault and murder the three judges
with intent to retaliate against them for performing their official
duties. He is to appear in court tomorrow in U.S. District Court in
Newark, N.J., but the charges were brought in Chicago, where the judges
work.
Turner is known for his white supremacist view points
and is no stranger to the federal authorities. Turner's web site
carried the courthouse addresses of appeals court judges who had ruled
against white supremacist Matthew Halethe man accused of the murder of
the husband and mother of U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow in 2005.
We all know the old saying "opinions are like
A--holes, everyone has them." If we are not careful with how we share
these opinions and what we say, like Turner you can really stink the
place up.
What do you think, is Hal Turner wrong for what he
did, or is he a journalist who should be allowed to share his thoughts,
no matter what they are?
Filed under: Uncategorized
Tags: Hal Turner
I'm thinking protected but inappropriate nonetheless. I'm for "he's a loud mouth creep who should be thrown in the slammer AND have his internet service disconnected!"