Hal Turner learns the hard way: Being a conservative in America can get you arrested for what you say…

First, let me say again, I do not support Hal Turner. Don’t know of him, never heard or read a word that he has to say. But I support his right to say “Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed.”  Now let’s look at what the liberals had to say about G. W. Bush. You tell me if this is not prosecuting a guy because he is on the “wrong” side of the political spectrum.

Nobel Prize Winner Betty Williams, July 2007:  “Right now, I could kill George Bush,” she said. “No, I don’t mean that. How could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would love to be able to do that.” As she made her point, she chuckled and some members of the audience laughed.

I googled “Kill Bush” images and was shocked at all the creative ways liberals came up with to show their approval of his assassination.

Liberals think they are clever playing the “Kill Bush” game.

An example of "liberal humour"

An example of "liberal humour"

Liberals place for sale an entire line of “Kill Bush” products: buttons, T-shirts and purses (for the girly men) with a blood splattered words “Kill Bush” on them. What funny pranksters they are. 

The shirt’s black and red lettering on yellow says:

 For Gods Sake …
Save the United States
and the Rest of the World

The 100 percent cotton shirt was offered for $16.99.

Jackass star Stevo says he wants to kill George W. Bush. The British-born daredevil rapper spoke out from a cab outside trendy South Beach, but quickly took back his presidential threat saying he was “just a rapper”. Hurling a string of expletives, Stevo shouted: “F**k George Bush, I’ll kill him. “Is that illegal? Nah dude, anyone in their right mind would kill that f*****g mutha-f****r.”He then later said that “Nah, I’m not killing anyone I’m just a rapper – you know what rap is, it’s just art!”  My what a clever chap he is. And the liberals love him.

…”in New York CIty, a few blocks from Ground Zero, several thousand people gathered in Tomkins Square Park shouted “Kill George Bush” in unison for several minutes. I couldn’t believe my ears.”

Here, you can go play “Kill Bush” on line now. You deranged fucking liberals know you want to.

And let’s not forget the movie where Bush was assassinated.

"Freedom of speech" is only for liberals when a Democrap is in the White House

"Freedom of speech" is only for liberals when a Democrap is in the White House









Chris fucking Matthews on PMS-NBC:

Matthews: “Look, let me ask you this. Where are you on capital punishment?”

Malachy McCourt: “Capital punishment? I think that if, if I’ve got to find that guy in Spain who indicted Pinochet and get him for war crimes, and I get him to do the same thing for Bush. And in that case, I would be for capital punishment. Otherwise, I am against it . . . “

Matthews, at the close of the interview, guffawed: “Well, I had to tell you, I hereby make my stand, I like you already. Malachy McCourt, Green Party candidate.”






He he. Such clever liberals...

He he. Such clever liberals...

 First, they came for the White Supremecist, and I said nothing, because I was not a White Supremecist…



9 responses to “Hal Turner learns the hard way: Being a conservative in America can get you arrested for what you say…

  1. The problem with Hal Turner is that he is mentally ill and does not belong with the ones he claims to be part of (who largely reject him, anyhow).

  2. Oh. Let’s lock up all the “mentally ill.” No, wait, we don’t do that. See all the dirty people roaming the streets. I KNOW! Let’s just lock up the mentally ill CONSERVATIVES! Yeah, THAT’S THE TICKET. You feel better now?

  3. sensi, I don’t disagree with you if you are just saying the guy is a nut. If you are saying that it’s ok that he is locked up without bail for what he said BECAUSE he is a nut, then see my previous comment…

  4. -how sad it is that on this 4th/July/2009 the jew-ZOG(Zionist Occupational Gov’mt.) is able to trample upon our usaConstitution by making a Political-prisoner of valiant Patriot- Harold ‘Hal’ Turner, –while the general public ignorantly carries on today as though we’ve something to celebrate…
    -until devious infiltration by the insidious jewJudges via their abusive if unConstititional witch-hunt ‘hate’-law mongering, –‘Freedom of speech’ in the USA was protected by the 1st-Amendment to the usa-Constitution and by many state-constitutions, and state and federal laws! Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, are generally permitted. There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the ‘Miller test for obscenity’, Child-pornography laws, and regulation of commercial-speech such as advertising. Other limitations on free-speech often balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property-rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in “fair” political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on Hate speech or fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance. Efforts have been made to ban flag-desecration, for example, though currently that act remains protected speech.
    During colonial times, English speech regulations were rather restrictive. The English criminal common law of seditious-libel made criticizing the government a crime. Chief Justice Holt, writing in 1704, explained the apparent need for the prohibition of no government can subsist. For it is very necessary for all governments that the people should have a good opinion of it. The objective truth of a statement in violation of the seditious libel law was not a defense.

    Until 1694, England had an elaborate system of licensing. No publication was allowed without the accompaniment of a government-granted license.

    -the colonies originally had different views on the protection of free-speech. During English colonialism in America, there were fewer prosecutions for seditious libel than England, but other controls over dissident speech existed. Professor Levy said that each community “tended to be a tight little island clutching its own respective orthodoxy and . . . eager to banish or extra’legally punish unwelcome dissidents.”
    The most stringent controls on speech in the colonial period were controls that outlawed or otherwise censored speech that was considered blasphemous in a religious sense. A 1646 Massachusetts-law, for example, punished persons who denied the immortality of the soul. In 1612, a Virginia governor declared the death penalty for a person that denied the Trinity under Virginia’s Laws Divine, Moral and Martial, which also outlawed blasphemy, speaking badly of ministers and royalty, and “disgraceful words.”

    More recent scholarship, focusing on seditious speech in the 17th-century colonies (when there was no press), has shown that from 1607 to 1700 the colonists’ freedom of speech expanded dramatically, laying a foundation for the political dissent that flowered among the Revolutionary generation. See Larry D. Eldridge, A Distant Heritage: The Growth of Free Speech in Early America (NYU Press, 1994). Leonard Levy wrote of this book: “Anyone who has not read A Distant Heritage cannot know the history of freedom of speech.”

    The trial of John Peter Zenger in 1735 was a seditious libel prosecution for Zenger’s publication of criticisms of the Governor of New York. Andrew Hamilton represented Zenger and argued that truth should be a defense to the crime of seditious libel, but the court rejected this argument. Hamilton persuaded the jury, however, to disregard the law and to acquit Zenger. The case is considered a victory for freedom of speech as well as a prime example of jury nullification. The case marked the beginning of a trend of greater acceptance and tolerance of free speech.

    Enter the usa/1st-Amendment;
    In the 1780s after the American Revolutionary War, debate over the adoption of a new Constitution resulted in a division between Federalists, such as Bank’ster AlexanderHamilton who favored a strong federal government, and Anti-Federalists, such as the esteemed Thos.Jefferson and PatrickHenry whom favored a weaker fed.-government. During and after the Constitution ratification process, Anti-Federalists and state legislatures expressed concern that the new Constitution placed too much emphasis on the power of the federal government. The drafting and eventual adoption of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, was, in large part, a result of these concerns, as the ‘Bill of Rights’ acts to limit the power of the federal government, and was adopted on December 15, 1791. The Amendment states:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Then the usa-SupremeCourt applied the incorporation principle to the right of free-speech via the case of Gitlow v. New York. This decision applied First-Amendment speech rights to State-laws as well.
    The Alien and Sedition Acts:
    In 1798, Congress, which contained several of the drafters and ratifiers of the Bill of Rights at the time, adopted the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. The law prohibited the publication of “false, scandalous, and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame . . . or to bring them . . . into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them . . . hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the USA, or any act of the President of the USA.”

    The law did allow truth as a defense and required proof of malicious intent. The 1798 Act, however, made ascertainment of the intent of the framers in regard to the First Amendment somewhat difficult, as some of the members of Congress that supported the adoption of the First Amendment also voted to adopt the 1798 Act. The Federalists under usa-Pres. JohnAdams aggressively used the law against their rivals, the Democratic-Republicans. The Alien and Sedition Acts were a major political issue in the 1800 election, and after he was elected Pres.-Thos.Jefferson pardoned those who had been convicted under the Act. The Act expired and the usa-SupremeCourt never ruled on its constitutionality.
    In NewYork-Times v. Sullivan, the Court declared “Although the Sedition-Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history.” 376 U.S. 254, 276 (1964).
    First Amendment interpretation;
    Freedom of speech in the USA follows a graduated system, with different types of regulations subject to different levels of scrutiny in court challenges based on the 1st-Amendment, often depending on the type of speech.
    Types of Speech…
    Core Political-Speech:
    This is the most highly guarded form of speech because of its purely expressive nature and importance to a functional democracy. Most simply, core political speech is interactive communications about political ideas or issues that are not motivated by profit. Restrictions placed upon core political speech must weather strict scrutiny analysis or they will be struck down.
    Commercial Speech:
    Not wholly outside the protection of the First Amendment is speech motivated by profit. Such speech still has expressive value although it is being uttered in a marketplace ordinarily regulated by the state. Restrictions of commercial speech are subject to a four-element intermediate scrutiny. (Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission)
    Types of restraints on speech:
    Time, place, or manner restrictions must withstand intermediate scrutiny. Note that any regulations that would force speakers to change how or what they say do not fall into this category (so the government cannot restrict one medium even if it leaves open another). Time, place, or manner restrictions must:
    1. Be content neutral
    2. Be narrowly tailored…
    3. …to serve a significant governmental interest
    4. Leave open ample alternative channels for communication
    Content-based restrictions:
    Restrictions that require examining the content of speech to be applied must pass strict scrutiny.
    Viewpoint-based restrictions:
    Restrictions that apply to certain viewpoints but not others face the highest level of scrutiny, and are almost always overturned, unless they fall into one of the court’s special exceptions.
    Special exceptions:
    Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is one exception. It is speech to which all of the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (-usually applied to more hard-core forms of pornography.)
    ‘Fighting words’: -are words & phrases that are likely to induce the listener to get in a fight. This previously applied to words such as ‘nigger’, but with people getting less sensitive to words, this exception is little-used. Restrictions on hate-speech have been generally overturned by the courts; such speech cannot be targeted for its content but may be targeted in other ways, if it involves speech beyond the First Amendment’s protection like incitement to immediate violence or defamation.
    Moreover, Speech that posses imminent-lawless action was originally banned under the ‘clear & present danger’ -test, established by Schenck v. United States, but this test has since been replaced by the imminent-lawless action test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The canonical example, enunciated by Justice OliverWendellHolmes, is falsely yelling “Fire!” in a crowded movie-theater. The trend since Holmes’s time has been to restrict the clear and present danger exception to apply to speech which is completely apolitical in content.
    Restrictions on commercial speech, defined as speech mainly in furtherance of selling a product, is subject to a lower level of scrutiny than other speech, although recently the court has taken steps to bring it closer to parity with other speech. This is why the government can ban advertisements for cigarettes and false information on corporate prospectuses (ie: -which try to sell stock in a company).
    Limits placed on libel & slander have been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court narrowed the definition of libel with the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell made famous in the movie The People vs. publisher LarryFlynt.
    The Government Speech Doctrine establishes that the government may censor speech when the speech is its own, leading to a number of contentious decisions on its breadth.
    Prior restraint:
    If the government tries to restrain speech before it is spoken, as opposed to punishing it afterwords, it must: clearly define what’s illegal, cover the minimum speech necessary, make a quick decision, be backed up by a court, bear the burden of suing and proving the speech is illegal, and show that allowing the speech would “surely result in direct, immediate and irreparable damage to our Nation and its people” (New York Times Co. v. United States). U.S. courts have not permitted most prior restraints since the case of Near v. Minnesota in 1931.
    In Schools:
    In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Supreme Court extended broad First Amendment protection to children attending public schools, prohibiting censorship unless there is “substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others”. Several subsequent ruling have affirmed or narrowed this protection. Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) supported disciplinary action against a student whose campaign speech was filled with sexual innuendo, and determined to be “indecent” but not “obscene”. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) allowed censorship in school newspapers which had not been established as forums for free student expression. Guiles v. Marineau (2006) affirmed the right of a student to wear a T-shirt mocking President George W. Bush, including allegations of alcohol and drug use. Morse v. Frederick (2007) supported the suspension of a student holding a banner reading “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” at a school-supervised event which was not on school grounds. In Lowry v. Watson Chapel School District, an appeals court struck down a school dress code and literature distribution policy for being vague and in practice overly prohibitive of criticism against the school district.[2]
    Such protections also apply to public colleges & universities. For example, student-newspapers which have been established as forums for free expression have been granted broad protection by appeals courts.[3][4]

    In Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384 (1993), the Supreme Court of the United States held (in a unanimous decision) that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment was offended by a school district that refused to allow a church access to school premises to show films dealing with family and child-rearing issues faced by parents.
    State action and lack thereof
    A sign prompted by the Pruneyard case
    A major issue in freedom of speech jurisprudence has been whether the 1st-Amendment merely runs against state-actors, or whether it can run against private-actors as well. Specifically, the issue is whether private-landowners should be permitted to utilize the machinery of government to exclude others from engaging in free-speech on their property (which means balancing the speakers’ 1st-Amendment rights against the Takings Clause). The right of freedom of speech within private shopping-centers owned by others has been vigorously litigated under both the federal and state Constitutions. See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980).
    Main article: Censorship in the USA…
    While personal freedom of speech is usually respected, freedom of press and mass publishing encounter some restrictions. Some of the recent issues include:

    * USA-Military censoring blogs (written by military personnel).
    * The Federal Communications Commission censoring television and radio, citing obscenity, e.g., HowardStern and Opie and Anthony (Though the FCC only has the power to regulate over-the-air broadcasts, and not cable nor satellite-television nor satellite-radio).
    See also Roth v. USA
    * Scientology suppressing criticism, citing freedom of religion, e.g., Keith Henson.
    As of 2005, USA was ranked 44th of 167-countries in annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders. In the 2006 index the USA has fallen nine places and is now ranked 53rd of 168 countries. The US ranked 48th in 2007, however, moving back up 5 places.
    Freedom of expression:
    While freedom of expression by non-speech means is commonly thought to be protected under the 1st-Amendment, the Fed./Supreme-Court has only recently taken this view. As late as 1968 (USA v. O’Brien) the SupremeCourt stated that regulating non-speech can justify limitations on speech. The Court carried this distinction between speech and expression through the early part of the 1980s (Clark v. CCNV, 1984). It was not until the flag-burning cases of 1989 (Texas v. Johnson) and 1990 (USA v. Eichman), that the Supreme-Court accepted that non-speech means applied to ‘freedom of expression’ and ‘freedom of speech’.
    Freedom of speech on the Internet:
    In a rare 9-0 decision, the Supreme-Court extended the full-protection of the 1st-Amendment to the Internet in- ‘Reno v. ACLU’, a decision which struck down portions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, a law intended to outlaw so-called “indecent” online communication (that is, non-obscene material protected by the 1st-Amendment.) The court’s decision extended the same Constitutional protections given to books, magazines, films, and spoken-expression to materials published on the Internet. Congress tried a second time to regulate the content of the Internet with the Child/Online Protection-Act (COPA). The Court again ruled that any limitations on the internet were unconstitutional in American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft (2002).
    In USA v. American Library Association (2003), the Supreme-Court ruled that Congress has the authority to require public-schools and libraries receiving e-rate discounts to install filters as a condition of receiving federal funding. The justices said that any 1st-Amendment concerns were addressed by the provisions in the Children’s/Internet-Protection Act that permit adults to ask librarians to disable the filters or unblock individual sites…

  5. Mr. Knight, you seem to be well read, but the name with which you choose to identify yourself causes you to lose any credibility. It would be like me calling myself whitey-hater, “whiteysareallfools”, blackpowerwhiteweakness, whatever. You get the picture? With an ID like that it doesn’t matter how eloquently you express yourself, nobody except other pointy-hat wearin racists will ever bother to read what you write. Since it is so easy to change, you might wanna consider it. I’m just saying. Or maybe it is better to know up front what a racist you are. I’ll have to think about that.

    And please do not mistake my defense of this guy with agreement in general with what he has to say. IF he is a racist, as has been reported (and I don’t believe much of what has been reported), then I am in vehement opposition to his point of view, but I still will defend his right to say it. You have the right to post here whatever you want, just don’t expect to find anything remotely racist here (except when I try to tweak the politically correct liberals who think they see racism where it does not exist).

    In short, I’m defending old “Hal’s” right to say what he said, and condemning the Govt’s selective prosecution, but I am not a racist. If yer looking for racist buddies, go elsewhere…

  6. TS, DA.

  7. Nice one! Yet again, a neocon is spreading disinformation. This photo “Kill Bush” is a FAKE that began on this website!

    Any one who was interested in truth can clearly see what is obvious and without even bothering to do research!

    Continue spreading your lies, hatred, and bigotry. You people are blind to how truly evil you are!

  8. Keep smokin whatever it is you are smokin. None of the photos “began” on this website. I googled them, and took them off the internet. Now fuck off you troll.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s