Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Why isn't Hal Turner in jail yet? He's now published the home address of the superintendent of Lexington schools in Massachusetts (where the nuts are all upset about books that dare to mention that some families include gay people) and urged his followers to kill the guy:
The radio host says "I advocate parents using FORCE AND VIOLENCE against Superintendent Paul B. Ash as a method of defending the health and safety of school children presently being endangered through his politically-correct indoctrination into deadly, disease-ridden sodomite lifestyles." The site lists Ash's last known addresses, a phone number, and a birth date.
This isn't the first time he's done something like this. He's also said on his radio show that someone has to kill Barack Obama to keep him from becoming president. He's also the guy who cheered on the murder of Judge Lefkow in Chicago. My readers know that I'm about as absolutist as it gets when it comes to free speech, but when you're printing someone's home address and telling people to go commit violence against them, that crosses the line from protected speech to unprotected speech. That isn't just a vague "I wish all the (fill in the blank) would die" kind of statement, it's a specific and credible threat against a particular individual that includes information that would facilitate the commission of murder. Hal Turner should be in jail.
Comments
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | April 11, 2008 9:17 AM
It's all right, Ed, he didn't use any of the 7 prohibited words, so it's no big deal.
Now, if he'd said "fuck", rather than call for "force and violence" or incite murder, now that would be a serious offense.
Posted by: Amiable Dorsai | April 11, 2008 9:29 AM
Ted Rall, an op-ed writer, recently posited that before people could vote, they should be able to demonstrate they had at least a basic grasp of the issues involved. Of course, he followed with how that might be considered a "poll tax", but he concluded with we might actually get politicians who worked.
Given that this type of guy scares the crap out of me and has a potential audience of tens of millions, maybe that concept should be extended to those who engage in public discourse. Before opening his mouth, he needs to understand deeply & viscerally what those words could mean.
Ed, I know I am trampling on much of the freedoms we hold dear. Its the age old argument of "at what point does your freedom infringe on my right to live" in some form or another. I'm just looking for whatever nuggets of reason might come from other readers based on my comment.
Posted by: Pineyman | April 11, 2008 9:37 AM
According to Wikipedia, Hal Turner is an FBI informant. The FBI seems to have a nasty habit of keeping informants out of jail even when they break the law, with one of the worst examples being their protection of James "Whitey" Bulger even though they knew he was involved in multiple murders. Bulger is now, belatedly, on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted Fugitives list, but if they hadn't tipped him off to a state police investigation in Massachusetts, he'd be in jail.
They've done the same with multiple hacker informants, including Max Butler and Justin Tanner Peterson. Peterson was tipping off drug dealers about imminent DEA raids while he was working as an FBI informant, and he also eavesdropped on phone conversations of Richard and Vicki Aznaran for the Church of Scientology when the Aznarans, former Scientologists, were participating in lawsuits against Scientology as plaintiffs and witnesses for other cases. I think Peterson's eavesdropping was instrumental in silencing the Aznarans (they ended up accepting a cash settlement in return for signing a confidentiality agreement and written retractions, which were then used to undermine other legal cases).
Posted by: Jim Lippard | April 11, 2008 9:43 AM
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report magazine, he may be an FBI informant:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=880
Posted by: Bruce | April 11, 2008 9:45 AM
Turner also advocated killing Obama on his website, but took it down. The SPLC and Jesus's General brought it to the attention of the authorities.
Posted by: Bartholomew | April 11, 2008 9:56 AM
That statement about Ash does seem to cross the line. I'm surprised. Turner is usually so careful about his choice of words. He wields "might" and "could" like a kid who gets right in your face and chants, "I'm not touching you." Looks like this time he slipped up and tapped a nose. It may be time to slug him.
Posted by: Abby Normal | April 11, 2008 10:06 AM
Anyone have Turner's address and phone number? Maybe someone should put it out there using what he said (with a slight variation of course).
I advocate parents using FORCE AND VIOLENCE against Hal Turner as a method of defending the health and safety of school administrators presently being endangered by his political stupidity.
Posted by: JoH | April 11, 2008 10:07 AM
Interesting, my company blocks his website. Even our automated filter recognizes his "hate and racism." I wonder how I'm going to expalin this one to HR.
Posted by: Abby Normal | April 11, 2008 10:11 AM
Hal Turner is an FBI informant? On what matters? Is he really important enough that he should be shielded from the consequences of his illegal actions?
So the guy who tried to incite people to kill a black liberal elected official (and possibly the next President) is shielded from punishment because he works for the FBI. That doesn't exactly make the FBI's agenda look good.
(I tried to look up the SPLC website, but my company's nanny-ware blocked access to it. I'm guessing that's because it referenced or quoted racist hate-speech.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 11, 2008 10:16 AM
Raging Bee,
The article doesn't say what the specific nature of his relationship with the FBI is or isn't - the FBI doesn't want to comment.
However, it did include comments from a number of people regarding how such a relationship, if it does indeed exist, would be highly improper:
'"This is clearly over the line," said James Nolan, an associate sociology professor at West Virginia University who is an expert in police procedure and a former unit chief in the FBI's Crime Analysis, Research and Development Unit. "Informants may be involved in drugs, and you overlook that because of the greater good. However, these are viable threats -- they could be carried out -- that the FBI clearly knows about. I want to see the FBI stop it."'
. . . and . . .
'"These are frightening groups whose members deserve to be investigated and infiltrated," said Jack Levin, a criminology professor and expert on the radical right at Northeastern University. "My concern is that Turner's methods actually are more dangerous and destructive than the evil they are seeking to cure. His threatening messages may actually inspire neo-Nazis to up the ante, to engage in even more destructive behavior."'
. . . and this . . .
'Added Mike German, a former FBI agent who has run informants himself: "This certainly raises a whole lot of questions that need to be answered in a public forum. There are strict rules about what an informant is allowed to do, and certainly encouraging or instigating others to commit acts of violence is far beyond what FBI agents should have their informants doing. Aside from the fact that you're possibly encouraging someone to commit an act of violence, there's also the danger that you're actually entrapping that person, which means he would get off."'
Posted by: Bruce | April 11, 2008 10:32 AM
Bruce: Thanks for the info. This Turner guy may not be a leader of a hate-group, but as a radio commentator, he clearly has lots of opportunity to influence criminal action. So right there we have a very serious, and dangerous, conflict of interest between informing the FBI of criminal actions, and advocating criminal actions at the same time.
I'm reminded of the case of Yevno Asef, who was both an informant for the Tsar's police, and the leader of the revolutionary group (Socialist Revolutionaries, terrorist wing) he was spying on. Basically, he informed on fellow SRs who were in competition with him for leadership of the movement, and was able to use the police to enhance both his party's power and his own power within it.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 11, 2008 10:45 AM
This statement would not be a crime here in NC, I don't know about Massachusetts. He would be liable for civil damages if someone took him up on the suggestion, though.
Posted by: kehrsam | April 11, 2008 11:25 AM
"I'll kill that Mr. Burns! And... um... wound that Mr. Smithers!"
Sorry.
Posted by: Turcano | April 11, 2008 11:31 AM
If his FBI connection is on Wikipedia, and he indeed has one, I'd say his cover is a little blown.
Rather than sink to Turner's level and threaten violence, we should all endeavor to take the high ground. (I.e. someone should just creatively edit his wiki and see what happens. "Hal Turner, seen on several occasions leaving a motel room with the teenage daughter of white separatist group Aryan Nation member blah blah blah...")
Posted by: Leni | April 11, 2008 11:32 AM
The reason I am not in jail is because I have not broken any law.
Things I say - even when advocating crime - are "protected speech." Specifically, publicly advocating crime is protected pursuant to US Supreme Court case "Brandenberg v. Ohio" 395 U.S. 444 (1969). You can read the short, one page case brief at http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_492/
Basically speech is protected unless it is designed to produce IMMINENT lawlessness AND is LIKELY to produce such lawlessness. To be unlawful, the speech must meet BOTH criteria.
Thus, advocating crime on an internet web site is LEGAL because such utterances are made in a context which does NOT lend itself to "IMMINENT" lawlessness.
How did the court define "IMMINENT?"
IMMINENT would be in a context that would not afford police time to respond in order to prevent such lawlessness.
To simplify it for all you jailhouse lawyers out there, I can say on my web site: "I advocate killing so and so because of such and such and he lives here or there. " because a web site is not a context that lends itself to imminent lawlessness.
HOWEVER, if I am standing in front of so and so and speaking to an angry mob, using the same words as above WOULD get me arrested because IMMINENT LAWLESSNESS would be LIKELY to occur. (The context of being in front of an angry mob who is physically near enough to the target to act imminently changes the context of the utterances and thus becomes unlawful.
Posted by: Hal Turner | April 11, 2008 12:21 PM
Raging Bee,
I'm also reminded of the role that radio had to play in the Rwandan genocide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines
Posted by: Bruce | April 11, 2008 12:28 PM
And why isn't Bill White in jail?
http://dailydoubt.blogspot.com/2007/06/more-on-pitts-death-threats.html
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | April 11, 2008 12:42 PM
Well Hal, I must admit the way in which you use legal hairsplitting to justify being a loathsome piece of shit is impressive in its audacity, if nothing else.
So what if one of your wingnut readers does take it upon himself to go and kill Ash, and maybe one or more of his family members? Guess you'll be really proud of yourself, eh?
Posted by: Martin | April 11, 2008 12:44 PM
So I clicked on Hal's link. He's "brave" enough to get on Ed's blog and respond, but he's not brave enough to let people comment on his site.
He's "brave" enough to sit behind a mike and advocate violence, but he's not brave enough to let people tell him what they think.
Hey, Hal, you're a big ol' pussy.
Why don't you grow a pair?
Posted by: James Hanley | April 11, 2008 12:48 PM
Well, at least Hal Turner is admitting he's advocating criminal violence and total disregard of the laws that protect his life as well as ours.
So, Hal, what are you doing for the FBI?
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 11, 2008 1:08 PM
Hal: if you explicitly advocate killing a particular person, and broadcast that person's address to a large number of listeners, then the cops would not have time to figure out in advance WHICH of your listeners would act on your recommendation, or where or when; nor would they necessarily have time to anticipate where or when they should intercept whoever takes action before he/she gets to the target. Therefore, your actions can indeed create "a context that would not afford police time to respond in order to prevent such lawlessness."
OTOH, if your job as an FBI informant is to rat out your own followers, then your intended target is safe, and you have a self-perpetuating career.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 11, 2008 1:18 PM
As long as we're splitting those legal hairs...Hal, when you posted that address, it was available to your readers immediately. In theory, on or more of your readers might have clicked on your web site at the exact moment that your posting hit the site. That hypothetical reader just might happen to be one who lives next door to Superintendent Ash. He could read your post, notice the address, and head next door in the time it takes you to get up from your desk for a cup of coffee. How imminent is the threat at that point - when the reaction could occur before you've even left your computer?
How likely is that? Hard to tell. But here's some considerations that might enhance the chances:
1. Do you post at a consistent time? Your rabid fans might be waiting eagerly to read you. (Yes, I think "rabid" is the correct term.)
2. How close is the nearest police station to Superintendent Ash's house? This psychotic fan doesn't have to be a next-door neighbor - he merely has to be closer than the police station...or to read a little faster.
3. Do you expect the police to be monitoring your site continuously? Or even at your normal posting times? Is it a proper use of scarce resources to check your site several times a day in case you might decide to advocate MORE criminal activities? They won't know until someone tells them - so our hypothetical psychotic Hal Turner fan - if that isn't redundant - has an even longer head start on the police.
It looks to me like there's quite a bit of leeway on that court definition of "imminent." Since violence apparently did not occur that quickly (apparently your rabid fans aren't quite so rabid as to follow your guidance), you may be able to convince the DA or a judge that your actions weren't criminal. You won't convince me, though.
Posted by: BobApril | April 11, 2008 3:13 PM
Hal is invoking Brandenburg in his defense, but if you read the Brandenburg decision you can see it was talking about a very different type of speech:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/brandenburg.html
This was the speech that caused the ruckus in Brandenburg:
Note that it does not advocate any specific crime, but only advocates the possibility of crime as a means for achieving an end.
The speech in Brandenburg was given before an angry mob armed with firearms. The presence of an angry mob is not what determines whether the speech is provoking "immanent lawlessness". Instead, the protected speech in Brandenburg is abstract speech, which promotes crime in general but not any specific, imminent crime to be committed. From the decision (the ellipses are to remove citations):
The speech in Brandenburg did not endorse any specific crime but was instead an abstract endorsement of criminal action in general. It was given before a mob that was armed with shotguns, rifles, and pistols, so Hal's claim that the mob is what decides whether or not it is "imminent lawlessness" is bullshit.
Hal's claims have given specific names and addresses with the admonition to kill or harm the person in some way. It is a very different kind of speech from the speech discussed in Brandenburg.
Posted by: Wes | April 11, 2008 3:32 PM
Isn't there also an "invasion of privacy" question here? Isn't it illegal to publish certain personal information, like an address or phone number, if such publication endangers the resident or exposes him/her to threats or harassment? From what I've heard, it can still be a crime to publish such information, even though it may already be publicly available elsewhere.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 11, 2008 3:49 PM
I wonder about Hal Turner. I wonder if Hal has to change his own address very often to prevent being accosted by the emotionally unstable weirdos he must attract. I wonder if Hal has a family, traditional or otherwise, that he needs to protect from aforementioned unstable weirdos, or if he is a pathetic loner. I wonder what he really does for a living as surely that dinky website can't bring in much in donations. I wonder if the "FBI informant" personna is just an invention of his to add depth to an otherwise rather trite character. I wonder if "Hal Turner" is just a stage name. Sheesh, what a way to get attention!
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 11, 2008 4:23 PM
Posting a decision from 1969, well before the internet age, is ludicrous. Good luck defending yourself with that one when one of your random and anonymous fans shows up at that guy's door with a gun.
Ass.
Posted by: Andrea | April 11, 2008 4:24 PM
Don't really need to publish Hal's address. He's pretty easy to find.
Posted by: Andrea | April 11, 2008 4:31 PM
Hal,
I assume you are using the Bible as your source for hating gays enough to want to kill someone for advocating putting a picture of a gay couple in a textbook. The textbook issue aside, what do you do with a scripture like Romans 2:1 that states clearly that "you who judge go the same things"? I have stated many times here( and gotten heat for it too) that my personal belief is that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. But I have also stated many times on here that that sin is no different in the eyes of God as any other sin including me looking at a woman with lust. Nor you. So should I get on a web sight and rally people to do you harm everytime you look at a woman's ass with lust? Why do you pick that one thing out and elevate above all other sins?
If you obsession with something that Jesus care so little about that he never mentioned it was not enough, you advocate killing someone. Instead, of coming on here and saying you are sorry you hide behind the rights that we have that have been bought and kept by others blood to stay out of jail by legal hair splitting done on purpose.
I have something to say for you as someone who went and risked my life overseas more than once for this gospel that you think you are preaching by hating gays: Stop doing this. I will also say that God has really dealt with me about not calling people names because no matter what we do we are valuable because we are made in His image. But I can say what you are acting like: a pussy. If it bothers you that much be a man and come out from behind the shadows of legal hair splitting and go to jail for it. Or just be quiet.
I agree with Ed. Not only do you give God and Christians a bad name you should be in jail. This is not free speech. This is stupid.
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 11, 2008 4:44 PM
Except for the safety of those children who will be gay, no doubt.
Posted by: Bachalon | April 11, 2008 5:15 PM
(Gentle Readers:please excuse the following Jerseyese)
Dear Hal,
As a Jersey boy, born and raised, I'll bet a paycheck that you were somebody's bitch in high school, and now you sit, a gutless punk behind a microphone, ecstatic that you think you have found someone that you perceive as more helpless then yourself.
About gay folks, all I can say is to repeat the wisdom of the greatest hounddog I ever knew.
Scot, he said, because that was my name, the thing about fags is this, if you don't smoke dick, and don't want to smoke dick, than you got no problem with people who want to smoke dick.
But, if you don't smoke dick, but secretly want to smoke dick, well..., that's where all the assholes are coming from.
So Hal, go off and resolve those desires that revealed themselves back in the day. And if you wanna meet, I'm in Fl. takin' care of some business
but I'll be back in a couple of weeks.
Newton?..... what a punk
As an old street warrior, I tell you there is no honor gained picking on the defenseless. PUNK
Posted by: The Pale Scot | April 11, 2008 6:55 PM
The above is to be spoken in a Tony Soprano accent. Capiche?
Posted by: Wes | April 11, 2008 7:42 PM
To advocate violence in any form against anybody is despicable. The use of violence except in self-defense, IMO, is not acceptable. And no, keeping your kids from knowing that gay people exist is *not* a form of self-defense.
Posted by: Buffy | April 11, 2008 8:11 PM
Hal, I'm not going to join others and wish that violence was done to you.
No. That would put me in your class.
Instead, I'm going to wish that you live a long life. A very long life in which you suffer from some sort of lingering, nasty, putrefying disease that creates a cloud of foul stench around you so that no one will come near you. One that causes you such pain as to deny you the ability to rant and rave, thus depriving you of the attention you so ardently crave.
Ideally, the person who could cure this disease would be gay...but I won't insist on that. I'm content for you to go uncured.
Posted by: CanadianChick | April 11, 2008 11:03 PM
I'm just gonna wait to see what comes of it. If nothing manifests, I'm going to start losing faith in Ed's freedom of speech ideals and start calling for harsher laws, because this should not be allowed. If he did not break a law, then laws need to be changed. This man is a danger to others, has proven himself to be so, and should be in prison. I read other blogs that tend to come from the victimized point of view, claiming that religious freedom of speech can't be condoned if it hurts others, and I always make the point that we can't give the government that kind of power, it needs to be fought by using our own freedom of expression. But if nothing comes of this, I may need to rethink things.
Posted by: paul | April 12, 2008 2:35 AM
It's amusing that one of the criticisms Mr. Turner levels against Mr. Ash is that the latter is (at least in Turner's mind) advocating a lifestyle that is "deadly,"- in other words, the very fact that something is "deadly" means that it is wrong- and then goes on to advocate deadly behavior ("force and violence") against the superintendent.
Posted by: daniel rotter | April 12, 2008 3:21 AM
My problem with people like Mr Turner who skate close to the law like this; (And yes, Mr. Turner, you are closer to breaking the law then you like to let on.) Is that if the shoe were on the other foot, that is, if someone else was advocating for his death, giving out his personal information, and generally aiding someone in committing this act, then he would be very vocally caling for that person's arrest.
Then again, I've always thought that whole 'publish someones address then hold up your hands' thing to be quite cowardly. I wonder how many times Mr. Turner has attempted to get his home address and such removed for internet sites and other publications.
Let's see what I can dig up. OH! DID MR. TURNER PRESS LEGAL ISSUES WHEN PEOPLE CALLED INTO HIS RADIO SHOW? Hmm.... I think maybe yes. Sending out legal threats AND taking other cyber-terrorist type activities (Like malicious redirection.) What about these people's constitutionally protected free speech, Mr. Turner? Or does it only apply to you?
Posted by: Brendan S | April 12, 2008 9:12 AM
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-njdce/case_no-2:2007cv00306/case_id-198438/
Here's the legal case....
Posted by: Brendan S | April 12, 2008 9:14 AM
yes he should be in jail
how do we help make this happen?
Posted by: Ramona | April 12, 2008 9:24 AM
Re Hal Turner
I have a flash for Mr. Turner. The Secret Service takes a very dim view of people who even discuss the possibility of the assassination of a US President or a serious presidential candidate. I strongly suspect that Mr. Turner is rather high up on the Secret Service radar at the present time and, should Senator Obama be elected president, will ascend to the top of the list. If Mr. Turner had even half a brain, which is highly doubtful, he would greatly lower his profile relative to Senator Obamas' candidacy. He really doesn't want the Secret Service and the FBI conducting an in depth investigation of his affairs as who knows what they might turn up.
Posted by: SLC | April 12, 2008 9:25 AM
Hal, since you have no regard for the laws that enable a society to function without tearing itself to pieces, I can garuntee that should your death threat bear fruit, you will follow mr Ash to the grave( but strait to Hell after that). If the law cannot protect people you don't like, how can it protect you or those you love? Granted, you and shit house crazies like you are pretty much monopolized by the right but certainly we can find someone willing to put a mad dog down.
Posted by: Tek | April 12, 2008 10:16 AM
This Hal Turner guy is obviously an idiot. We're wasting our time even talking about guys like this. However, I will say that it's not an overreaction. Overreaction is when Isikoff says Drudge is "dangerous". "Ooooh, we must regulate dangerous thoughts." "We can't let stupid people have these thoughts." Smacks of elitism and sour grapes. We're not smarter than everybody else, and you don't win people to your cause with ridiculousness like that.
Whereas this idiot is using public airwaves to incite violence against an individual. THAT'S dangerous.
And nice gay-beard, Ed.
Posted by: HuckyDucky | April 12, 2008 10:43 AM
He threatened Obama? Doesn't he know the Senator is from Chicago!?
Hal - and his immediate family, their pets and their real-estate - had best hope nobody takes a shot at Barrack. Hell, I wouldn't want to be within a statutory mile of this dude if someone offs Obama; The Disciples and the Stones make Scarface's old lot look like the most discriminating of killers.
Posted by: Sarcastro | April 12, 2008 12:51 PM
Seems to me both these remarks are advocacy of terrorism -as the feds now broadly define it - violence with the intent to influence politics.
Posted by: slowthought | April 12, 2008 2:03 PM
I suggest you folks educate yourselves about the legitimate use of force and violence against government.
Start by reading Federalist 28, specifically Paragraph 6. Alexander Hamilton (one of America's Founding Fathers) wrote
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, . . . . .The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
In case you don't understand what Hamilton meant, he meant pick up guns and kill them.
Paul B. Ash - a public official of the Public school system - is betraying the people of Lexington, MA whom he was hired to serve. He has been repeatedly told by THE PEOPLE to stop trying to teach 5 year olds about gay families. He has defied THE PEOPLE and continues to defy THE PEOPLE.
Asa far as I am concerned there is no recourse left but in the exercise of the original right of self defense.
If killing government officials is endorsed by our Founding Fathers, who am I to disagree?
Hal Turner
Posted by: Hal Turner | April 12, 2008 3:54 PM
Wow, that's one of the most tortured interpretations I've ever seen, especially to justify violence.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | April 12, 2008 4:23 PM
I'm kind of just in shock, but then I realize that this is exactly what right-wingers do, I'm just used to seeing quote-mining used to enhance a false Christian Nation ideology, not to advocate killing those who want to promote tolerance of diversity. Though I suppose that this IS extreme Christian Nation thinking. It astounds me that you think any thinking person would defend your position in this circumstance. You're batshit crazy.
You sir, are the reason that I no longer believe in gun abolition. Decent people do have to be able to protect themselves, from the likes of you and your ilk.
But I admit, you've got some balls sticking to this lunacy. And I hope to see those balls in your cell mate's beefy hands in prison soon. I'm sure the irony of that situation wouldn't be lost on you.
Posted by: paul | April 12, 2008 4:57 PM
Where are the transcripts where Hal Turner has alleged to have said such things? I find these accusations very hard to believe. They must be backed with evidence.
Posted by: Crow | April 12, 2008 5:05 PM
Paul B. Ash - a public official of the Public school system - is betraying the people of Lexington, MA whom he was hired to serve. He has been repeatedly told by THE PEOPLE to stop trying to teach 5 year olds about gay families. He has defied THE PEOPLE and continues to defy THE PEOPLE.
Which people, exactly? How many? Have they tried peaceful political or legal means to get Ash fired? What was the outcome?
Asa far as I am concerned there is no recourse left but in the exercise of the original right of self defense.
Again, what about peaceful, legal, democratic means of holding a public official accountable for his actions? Your silence on this issue speaks louder than your words.
Oh, and how is killing a school official for policies you don't like "self-defense?"
Your dishonest and incoherent use of the Founders' words gives our democracy a bad name. But I guess that doesn't concern you, given your total disdain for democratic principles and procedures.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 12, 2008 5:05 PM
Paul B. Ash - a public official of the Public school system - is betraying the people of Lexington, MA whom he was hired to serve. He has been repeatedly told by THE PEOPLE to stop trying to teach 5 year olds about gay families. He has defied THE PEOPLE and continues to defy THE PEOPLE.
Which people, exactly? How many? Have they tried peaceful political or legal means to get Ash fired? What was the outcome?
Asa far as I am concerned there is no recourse left but in the exercise of the original right of self defense.
Again, what about peaceful, legal, democratic means of holding a public official accountable for his actions? Your silence on this issue speaks louder than your words.
Oh, and how is killing a school official for policies you don't like "self-defense?"
Your dishonest and incoherent use of the Founders' words gives our democracy a bad name. But I guess that doesn't concern you, given your total disdain for democratic principles and procedures.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 12, 2008 5:06 PM
I still think we should edit his wiki.
Something lurid involving meth and male prostitutes and a google map to his house would probably be enough.
Posted by: Leni | April 12, 2008 5:24 PM
Even if you buy into Turner's reading of Federalist 28 and the situation in question (and I certainly do not), the Federalist Papers are not the law. Yes, a few of the Founders wrote them, but they were privately published.
Posted by: bumpkin | April 12, 2008 5:59 PM
First of all, making threats of violence against elected officials or candidates for public office is a federal crime, so this scumbag could be prosecuted if the relevant authorities wanted to do their duty.
Second, this scumbag's whereabouts can easily be traced using the normal tools of law enforcement, though a FISA warrant might speed up the process just a bit.
Third, we need a federal law that confidentializes home address information, and the subsidiary regulations to put the law into effect. I could write five or six pages on this subject but I'll leave it here for now.
Fourth, individuals can take steps right now to confidentialize their home addresses and remove that information from public records. The process is somewhat tedious but it can be done; I did it after helping send a violent stalker (history of bombs included) to prison.
Fifth, individuals who have reason to believe that they may be subject to violent threats need to take all relevant security measures including home security systems with multiple backup means for getting help, and including arming themselves and practicing at using firearms effectively for personal and home defense. Hint: you can keep your firearms locked up securely to prevent accidents, and design your security system to give you time to get to them before an intruder knows he's been detected.
Sixth, as for Turner, here's to hoping he spends the rest of his years in prison and dies in his cell from Alzheimer's disease.
Posted by: g347 | April 12, 2008 6:24 PM
Hey Hal, how do your friends in the Brotherhood feel about you informing on them to the FBI?
I'd suggest you spend more time running, motherfucker, and less time posting bullshit on the internet.
Posted by: Dog of War | April 12, 2008 6:33 PM
Hal says, "Paul B. Ash - a public official of the Public school system - is betraying the people of Lexington, MA whom he was hired to serve. He has been repeatedly told by THE PEOPLE to stop trying to teach 5 year olds about gay families. He has defied THE PEOPLE and continues to defy THE PEOPLE."
Ah, now I understand what the problem is. Hal has been lied to; he has been misinformed. From what I understand the people of Lexington (I happen to have a brother who lives there, so I read the local news) are quite happy with Paul Ash and quite happy with teaching family diversity to their children. They are a highly educated and rather liberal bunch, but there are a few people there who don't agree with the majority. Isn't that always the way? As a matter of fact, there seem to be exactly TWO rather vocal individuals in Lexington who are against this enlightened part of the new curriculum. Why does Hal think that two men constitute THE PEOPLE?
Reminds me very much of the men who used to scream against integration, and against miscegenation, and against equality for women. You are spitting into the wind, boys; give it up.
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 12, 2008 7:27 PM
"If killing government officials is endorsed by the Founding Fathers, who am I to disagree?"
Mr. Turner, even if Hamilton's words are consistent with what you're advocating (and that is certainly a gigantic "if"), 1. as bumpkin pointed out, the words of the Federalist Papers are not the law of the land, and 2. you only quoted one Founding Father while in the above quotation, you implied that the Founding Fathers in general would support your advocacy of the murder of Mr. Ash.
Posted by: daniel rotter | April 12, 2008 8:47 PM
Does anybody know if Turner is listed on WhosARat.com ?
Posted by: tguy | April 12, 2008 10:59 PM
Crow -
A quick search finds plenty of instances over the years when he has advocated violence against public officials, blacks, Jews, etc - bombings, assassinations, lynching. Since you apparently aren't familiar with search engines, here's his website address ... http://www.halturnershow.com/. Read it. And don't forget to send him some money. He demands it.
"I was interviewed about the Superintendent of Schools in Lexington, MA who wants to teach 5 year olds about gay families. I advocated the use of force and violence against him and that started quite a ruckus throughout Massachusetts."
Comments on his site:
"I gave this Paul Ash-hole guy a call today... First time some bitch hung up on me, the 2nd time they said he wasnt home... This guy is a fucking coward. So hide behind your fucking heffer of a wifeyou fucking queer bag mother fucker, I might just show up on your door step to have a chat mr.ash"
Posted by: Andrea | April 12, 2008 11:16 PM
Also from his site -
"...I once again advocate using force and violence against the Lexington, MA Superintendent of Schools."
"I would laugh if some concerned father(s) donned ski masks and gloves, took a ride over to this arrogant prick's house and knocked the living shit out of him. I advocate parents using FORCE AND VIOLENCE against Superintendent Paul B. Ash as a method of defending the health and safety of school children presently being endangered through his politically-correct indoctrination into deadly, disease-ridden sodomite lifestyles."
Notice, Hal isn't offering to go do it himself. It's about 4 hours away, and with gas prices the way they are, it's probably too much for a guy who can't get his listeners to send him enough money to even maintain his little website/audio dealie.
Posted by: Andrea | April 12, 2008 11:27 PM
Isn't advocating violence an act of terraism?
Posted by: lauram | April 13, 2008 7:11 PM
Hal,
Your sense of judgement is so warped it is crazy man. Even if you could prove that putting a picture of a gay man in a textbook was "promoting" teaching children the gay lifestyle, what kind of sick bastard solves that problem by advocating killing someone. Please answere the questions I posed to you about Romans 2:1 above.
Ed,
Have you called the FBI on this dude? Is there any way to prove this is really him on this site. These comments have to be illegal somehow. This guy is really deranged something should be done. I am actually shocked.
Posted by: King of Ireland | April 15, 2008 6:37 PM