Have you heard this one about Hal Turner, an internet radio talk-show host and blogger (evidently, a jackoff of all trades) who thought it would be OK to sic his wild-eyed sycophants on some judges whose decision he disapproved? He wrote that the judges should be killed, and the next day, published photos of the courthouse where they work.
Shock jock Turner (one anagram of his name, incidentally, is "renal hurt") proclaimed himself to be shocked when the FBI took him into custody. Well, of course you can argue "first amendment" but only an idiot thinks that any right is completely unfettered. Turner is such an idiot, and he should be fettered.
Really, his statements as reported could be synopsized as "I haven't got the moxie to kill these guys but I hope someone else will." What other interpretation could there be? His words went beyond the old "so-and-so oughta be shot" kind of exclamation that used to crop up in innocent but exasperated speech decades ago. Besides, in those days, those words went no farther than the person you said them to; you wouldn't have used them with a total stranger.
But the problem with hate radio is that the rants and accusations so casually tossed out by the "hosts" do come to be heard by a lot of ears with not much between them. Even if Turner truly did not intend the judges to come to any harm, he'd have to be completely ignorant of his audience not to suppose that his "innocent" words, especially in a medium whose mission is to get people enraged, might not prompt action. If someone did (or does in future) attack and kill these judges, Turner would undoubtedly approve (he might even say so) but he would also claim he had no intention to cause harm. What might he say, I wonder, if someone posted a death threat against him on a blog?
The Constitution protects even idiots. Until recently, however, an idiot could not have aspired to appear regularly on radio and be an opinion-maker (unless he was elected to Congress). Speaking over the nation's airwaves, addressing an audience potentially of millions, puts the "host" in a position of public trust. It carries with it a degree of responsibility. It's too late to ask Walter Cronkite but we can guess what he would have said.
Comments