Lawyer Invokes First Amendment Calls Bloggers Remarks Protected Free Speech, by David Owens, Hartford Courant, August 19, 2009

Lawyer Invokes First Amendment
Calls Blogger's Remarks Protected Free Speech

By David Owens
Hartford Courant
August 19, 2009

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-hal-turner-court-0819.artaug19,0,5016631.story

HARTFORD — - A lawyer for Harold "Hal" Turner, the blogger and Internet radio host accused of encouraging people to "take up arms" against two Connecticut legislators and a state ethics official, said Tuesday that the comments are protected by the First Amendment.

Turner knew just where the line was between protected political speech and criminal conduct because the FBI taught him when the agency used him as an informant, his attorney, Michael A. Orozco of Newark, N.J., said outside a Hartford courtroom.

"Mr. Turner was trained by the FBI," Orozco said. "He was told where the line was — what he could say." Turner, of New Jersey, worked as an "agent provocateur" for the FBI from roughly 2002 to 2007, Orozco said.

Harold "Hal" Turner, right, of North Bergen, N.J., leaves Superior Court in Hartford on Monday, June 22, 2009, after he was arraigned on a charge of inciting violence against state lawmakers.
Photo by Jessica Hill

"His job was basically to publish information which would cause other parties to act in a manner that would cause their arrest," Orozco said. On several occasions, Turner passed on to the FBI information about threats from readers.

The comments that got Turner in trouble were written and published after Turner left the service of the FBI, Orozco said. An FBI spokesman in Washington declined to comment on any role Turner may have had with the bureau.

Turner was charged by the Connecticut State Capitol Police on June 3 with inciting injury to persons or property after he posted material on his website criticizing proposed legislation that would have shifted some control of Roman Catholic Church affairs from the church to lay members. Turner was accused of targeting state Rep. Michael Lawlor, state Sen. Andrew McDonald and Thomas Jones, an employee in the State Ethics Office.

He allegedly threatened to make public their home addresses and wrote, "It is our intent to foment direct action against these individuals personally. These beastly government officials should be made an example of as a warning to others in government: Obey the Constitution or die."

On June 24, federal authorities arrested Turner on charges that he threatened to assault and murder three federal judges in Chicago in retaliation for their ruling upholding a gun ban.

"Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed," Turner allegedly wrote on his website.

But Orozco, writing in a motion to dismiss the federal charges, said that as offensive as some may find those writings, they are protected speech.

In Hartford Tuesday, Orozco said he will use the same First Amendment argument to defend Turner on the Connecticut charges.

"Mr. Turner's blog tends to have a small following of right-wing followers," Orozco wrote in his federal motion. "The language used by this segment of the population to express its views is sometimes harsh or often peppered with violence. Regardless of how many people may have viewed it, given his public status and shock jock persona, there can be no doubt that Turner's statements were nothing more than politically charged rhetoric of someone unhappy with the judge's opinion in NRA v. Chicago, and are therefore protected."

Turner's writing is "the same political hyperbole" that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled is protected speech. "There was never intent in Mr. Turner's words to incite violence, nor is there any evidence that the judges in this case ever felt threatened by Mr. Turner's statements," Orozco wrote. "They are merely the expressions of a shock jock who uses exaggeration to make his political points. When these statements are viewed within the context of right-wing propaganda, they are typical language of that segment of the population; and as such, the court here cannot find them to be criminal without infringing on Mr. Turner's First Amendment rights."

Orozco has represented Turner against criminal charges in New Jersey and is representing him in federal court in Chicago.

Tuesday in Superior Court in Hartford, Orozco was approved to represent Turner in the Connecticut case although he is not a member of the Connecticut bar.

Turner did not appear in court Tuesday because he remains in federal custody in Chicago. He is scheduled to go to trial on the federal charges on Oct. 5. His next court date in Hartford is set for Oct. 19.