The Hatewatch blog is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.

Neo-Nazi’s Conviction for Threatening Juror is Reinstated

By Mark Potok on October 29, 2012 - 12:56 pm, Posted in Anti-Black, Extremist Crime, Neo-Nazi

Neo-Nazi Bill White spent years pushing the limits of the First Amendment. Last week, thanks to a ruling by a federal appeals court, the First Amendment pushed back.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on Friday reinstated White’s 2011 conviction for soliciting violence against a jury foreman who helped convict another white supremacist in Chicago, The Roanoke (Va.) Times reported over the weekend. White, an infamous white supremacist and former anarchist who once led a group called the American National Socialist Workers Party, now faces up to 10 years in prison when he is sentenced on a date that has yet to be set.

It was a particularly bad moment for White. Just three days earlier, another court had added three months to a two-and-a-half-year sentence White had recently completed for, among other things, sending a threatening letter to black tenants in Virginia who had filed a discrimination lawsuit against their landlord. The time was added because at least one tenant was a child, causing an appeals court to rule that White should have received an enhanced sentence. The three months were added by a lower court in response to the appeals court’s decision.

Earlier this year, before his re-sentencing on that case, White fled to Mexico. But he was arrested there within a month and sent back to the United States, where he was handed an additional 10 months for violating his parole by fleeing.

Friday’s ruling, however, was the most important development in the legal saga of Bill White — both because of what it said about the limits of the First Amendment and because it could result in White spending another decade in federal prison.

The case was based on a 2008 posting White made on his now-defunct website,, that harshly criticized a juror in the 2004 conviction of Matt Hale, the leader of the neo-Nazi World Church of the Creator, for soliciting the murder of a federal judge. In the posting, headed “The Juror Who Convicted Matt Hale,” White described the juror as a gay Jew with a black lover and included detailed contact information for the man. He did not specifically call for violence against him, but said the man “played a leading role in inciting both the conviction and the harsh sentence that followed.” White went on to describe the conviction as wrongful and said Hale received a “criminally long sentence.”

White, who had earlier written that “[e]verybody associated with the Matt Hale trial has deserved assassination for a long time,” was convicted of soliciting violence against the juror. But an appeals court ruled that White had not directly threatened the man, and reversed the jury’s verdict. On Friday, after the government appealed that reversal, a three-judge panel reinstated the soliciting conviction.

According to The Roanoke Times, the panel’s decision rested on the context of White’s statements about the juror — namely, the fact that White routinely urged his readers to assassinate people he didn’t like. For example, he once wrote a post on entitled “Kill Richard Warman.” Warman was then an attorney in Canada who had enraged many racist groups with his anti-racist activism.

The court also relied on the fact that most of White’s readers were neo-Nazis. “[R]eaders of were not casual Web browsers, but extremists molded into a community by the internet — loyal and avid readers who, whether or not they remember every specific solicitation to assassination, knew that identified hateful enemies who should be assassinated,” its opinion said.

White was known for years for a fairly sophisticated understanding of what constituted a prosecutable threat on the Internet, and he regularly pushed the boundaries of what most legal experts considered permissible. Last Friday’s ruling meant, in effect, that the First Amendment has begun to bite back.

  • Erika

    Reynardine is right about witness and juror intimidation laws. If there is anything which can construed as possibly intimidating witnesses or jurors a person can be at risk of being jailed. It goes to the very heart of the legal system.

    There are some First Amendment issues which did surface some with the “Stop Snitching” movement. Wear a “Stop Snitching” T-shirt on the street and you are fine -show up at the court house wearing a “Stop Snitching” t-shirt* and you have a problem. Anything which can be seen as a particular threat towards a particular juror or a particular witness is a problem. A general statement that people should not cooperate with the police or to stop snitching is protected under the First Amendment.

    Posting information about a particular juror gets you very quickly outside of First Amendment protected territory and into threatening the intregrity of a trial territory – that gets you convicted.

    * before you question whether anyone would possibly be this stupid to do this, the answer is yes they are. i’ve actually seen people facing drug charges show up in court wearing “Scarface” t-shirts. i’m sure it gives them a good story to tell their cellmate.

  • CM

    “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”

    Thus, according to tradition, did Henry II bring about the murder of Thomas Becket, and also evade responsibility for the murder, through a careful choice of weasel-words. Back then, self-justification was an art; today, it’s a science.

  • Reynardine

    Where it comes to public figures, merely saying that someone should be shot and sold for manure is considered an expression of political opinion, and protected as such, unless there is strong evidence of design or specific instigation (Watt v. U.S.). Jurors are quite another matter, as are witnesses, since the mere threat can influence verdicts/testimony, not only in that case, but in future cases, thus compromising judicial process. Both the US Code and every state I know of can lawfully treat such threats as crimes, usually felonies. Threats against private citizens cover a whole spectrum of criminal and tort law, which can’t be covered here. Just don’t threaten violence against postal workers or grim old bats like me. That’s trouble.

  • Aron

    Somewhere out in the distance, beyond howling winds and rain of Hurricane Samdy Malloy (no offense, Sam. Ha!), I can hear the sound of sad trombones…

  • Sam Molloy

    Saying someone “should be assassinated” may not be illegal. This is probably a good thing, as laws that seem to make perfect sense in one context are inevitably misused eventually. Publishing the names and addresses of jurors is, I believe, a specific crime, as it is a very real threat to our entire legal system.