Quote:
Hal Turner's Lawyer, Michael Orozco, admits Hal was a "Agent Provocateur" for the FBI
|
One more point on this.
What does an “agent provocateur” claim have to do with a First Amendment defense? Nothing that I can see. It’s either protected speech or it’s not, regardless of the motive. So then why raise the agent provocateur issue at all? The only reason I can think of would be to muddy the prosecution’s case and place additional doubt in the judges’/ juries’ mind when you think your First Amendment defense could be weak. (i.e. “
If my client over stepped the free speech line, it was only because he was paid to do so.”)