Reporting that "reactionary radio host and white supremacist Hal Turner was taken into custody Wednesday after remarks urging Catholics to 'take up arms' against two Connecticut lawmakers and a state ethics official over legislation... regarding the church," independent news outlet Raw Story's John Byrne (6/4/09) deepens the story by recalling that "Turner used to be a regular on Sean Hannity's radio show (the Fox News pundit)":

When Hannity said he didn't have an association with Turner earlier this year, Turner wrote:

I was quite disappointed when Sean Hannity at first tried to say he didn't know me and then went on to say that I ran some senate campaign in New Jersey. In fact, Sean Hannity does know me and we were quite friendly a number of years ago.

When Hannity took over Bob Grant's spot on 77 WABC in New York City, I was a well-known, regular and welcome caller to his show. Through those calls, Sean and I got to know each other a bit and at some point, I can't remember exactly when, Sean gave me the secret "Guest call-in number" at WABC so that my calls could always get on the air.

Here, for your own consideration, is Crooks and Liars blogger John Amato quoting Turner's language that Connecticut Police Chief Michael J. Fallon deemed "above and beyond the threshold of free speech" for "inciting others through his website to commit acts of violence":

"It is our intent to foment direct action against these individuals personally," the blog stated. "These beastly government officials should be made an example of as a warning to others in government: Obey the Constitution or die."

And, the post continued, "If any state attorney, police department or court thinks they're going to get uppity with us about this; I suspect we have enough bullets to put them down too."

Directly referring to the reason such hate speech is such a hot topic currently, the Hartford Courant reports that "elsewhere on [Turner's] blog, the recent fatal shooting of a Kansas abortion provider is called 'a righteous act.'"

The independent website Raw Story (5/6/09) recently summarized the human toll of the U.S. government's torture program.  Approximately 100 prisoners have died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to human rights investigators, with 34 of those deaths officially classified as homicides; at least eight individuals were tortured to death.

Yet somehow, when corporate media report on the torture program's victims, they focus on the CIA, the agency that designed and helped implement the array of torture techniques known as "enhanced interrogation."  A  May 19 article by Walter Pincus, intelligence correspondent for the Washington Post, is a particularly gross example.

Pincus described the CIA as "battered by recriminations over waterboarding and other harsh techniques," and "girding itself for more public scrutiny."  The article presented the agency's view that "it is being forced to take the blame for actions approved by elected officials that have since fallen into disfavor."

"Fallen into disfavor"--that's one way to describe it.  Another way would be to say that these actions were violations of U.S. and international law, not to mention the Constitution, all of which clearly prohibit torture.

Usually when people are "forced to take the blame" for criminal actions, they are put on trial.  But Pincus notes that President Obama has promised that CIA torturers will not face punishment if they followed the Bush administration's torture guidelines.

But, writes Pincus, "agency personnel still face subpoenas and testimony under oath before criminal, civil and congressional bodies." His example: A grand jury investigation into the CIA's destruction of interrogation videotapes.  So even though CIA officers been effectively pardoned for the crime of torture, they still may have to answer for destroying the evidence.  Life can be so unfair sometimes.

Pincus cites a CIA officer's anguished plea, "Will I be in trouble five years from now for what I agree to do today?" In Pincus' world, the idea that a spy could commit a crime and not get away with it is a sign that something is very wrong.

Raw Story (2/22/09) has a report that illustrates, in passing, the ridiculousness of how copyright law is applied on the Internet.

The story concerns a McDonald's employee in Arkansas who threw an abusive customer out of the restaurant and got shot, and the hamburger company's refusal to pay the injured employer workers compensation because the worker's "injuries did not arise out of or within the course and scope of his employment."

Surely there's a legitimate public interest in the question of whether corporations pay compensation in such cases.  And if you want to have an informed opinion on this particular case, it would help to be able to see what actually happened.  The good news is that there is a videotape of the incident.  The bad news, as Raw Story reported:

A surveillance video of the incident, which had been posted to YouTube, was taken down after McDonald's charged copyright infringement.

It's unfortunately common for media companies to squelch criticism of themselves by claiming that their critics are violating their copyright.  But here you have a corporation that is not in the media business using copyright law to try to prevent people from seeing a video that they have no discernible commercial interest in, simply because people seeing the video might think less of the company. This is a perversion of copyright law, which is supposed to "promote the progress of science and useful arts," not assist in damage control operations for big businesses with PR problems.

Raw Story updated their story by noting that the video is once again available on YouTube, via a local news report from station KARK. Whether McDonald's will try to get that taken down as well, or whether the company has decided that such censorship efforts are actually counterproductive, remains to be seen.  But the public's access to information about public questions should not be held hostage to corporate PR strategies.