Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

30-year sentence for transporting zines is a five-alarm fire for free speech

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 577 posts

Re: 30-year sentence for transporting zines is a five-alarm fire for free speech

#101

Post by j_walter »

synoptik wrote: post #29
poplarsol wrote: post #25

[flagged]

More exactly: If your roommate attended a protest where someone got shot, and you transported their zines that indicate your roommate shares political ideology with the shooter, is anyone really under the impression this is not criminal in nature? And yes, that’s not criminal.

If his wife who is being charged in a crime asks her husband to destroy evidence, then yes that is a crime. Transporting may be what he was doing when he was caught, but they clearly had enough evidence to support that he was doing more than that.

30 years is absolutely excessive, but that doesn't mean the guy is not guilty.

Re: 30-year sentence for transporting zines is a five-alarm fire for free speech

#102

Post by ipython »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #90
ipython wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, the January 6 defendants: - were a group of at least 1000 people - who, among other things, erected a noose on the capitol grounds, brought zip ties and weapons - forcefully overran several capital police barricades intended to deter their entrance - used any weapon available including poles etc to violently attack any police in their way Granted they did not explicitly shoot any federal agents with…

[flagged]

Ugh let’s not get all conspiracy theory up in here. Show me real evidence of that and I’ll believe you.

Until then - to say at the same time - the Feds are so incompetent and also the Feds are organizing an elaborate secret network of agitators to be at all major protests and riots - let’s just say the logic doesn’t logic.

Re: 30-year sentence for transporting zines is a five-alarm fire for free speech

#104

Post by will4274 »

synoptik wrote: post #29
poplarsol wrote: post #25

[flagged]

More exactly: If your roommate attended a protest where someone got shot, and you transported their zines that indicate your roommate shares political ideology with the shooter, is anyone really under the impression this is not criminal in nature? And yes, that’s not criminal.

In this case, the roommate conspired to setup an ambush of police officers, an ambush which resulted in one of the police officers being shot in the neck. The roommate didn't "attend a protest" except by the broadest possible definition.

Re: 30-year sentence for transporting zines is a five-alarm fire for free speech

#105

Post by malcolmgreaves »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #90
ipython wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, the January 6 defendants: - were a group of at least 1000 people - who, among other things, erected a noose on the capitol grounds, brought zip ties and weapons - forcefully overran several capital police barricades intended to deter their entrance - used any weapon available including poles etc to violently attack any police in their way Granted they did not explicitly shoot any federal agents with…

[flagged]

Trump helped organize and encourage the January 6th insurrection. He was president during the insurrection. So yes, there was a lot of federal Republican help during that one.

Re: 30-year sentence for transporting zines is a five-alarm fire for free speech

#106

Post by ipython »

paisawalla wrote: post #75
ipython wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do want violent criminals prosecuted. But the problem is that there is a very clear signal given that prosecution is highly selective. I made my point earlier - if this administration cared about prosecuting violent criminals, they would never have even considered pardoning the J6 criminals. They would additionally call for swift and thorough investigations on the use of force against the killings of protesters in…

[flagged]

Ok sure not every of the 1500 people pardoned by Trump could be considered “violent”. Have you watched the videos? There’s definitely more than one.

And you’re shifting the goalposts by implying (falsely) that the person covered in the article also personally committed all the offences you mentioned earlier, including shooting a federal officer.

And don’t just take my word for it. There is a good amount of recidivism by those who received pardons. Almost 100 have subsequently been charged with other crimes, including child molestation. I’d consider someone who, after getting pardoned for the j6 riot, continuing on to diddle kids, a violent criminal.

> Perhaps most strikingly, five recipients of presidential clemency were arrested in connection with conduct that occurred at least in part subsequent to Trump’s freeing them from prison—meaning that Trump’s clemency order on the first day of his second term may have actively facilitated criminal conduct. These include:

> Andrew Paul Johnson, who was freed from prison as a result of the pardon in 2025, was convicted of five charges, including child molestation, in February 2026, and sentenced to life in prison. The criminal conduct for which he was convicted took place both before and after his pardon.

> Zachary Alam, who was convicted of felony charges of grand larceny and burglary just months after his pardon.

> Ryan Nichols, who was charged with deadly conduct and harassment on May 10, 2026, after allegedly threatening a person with a gun in a church parking lot.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-jan-6-pardons--how-...

Re: 30-year sentence for transporting zines is a five-alarm fire for free speech

#107

Post by malcolmgreaves »

paisawalla wrote: post #75
ipython wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do want violent criminals prosecuted. But the problem is that there is a very clear signal given that prosecution is highly selective. I made my point earlier - if this administration cared about prosecuting violent criminals, they would never have even considered pardoning the J6 criminals. They would additionally call for swift and thorough investigations on the use of force against the killings of protesters in…

[flagged]

J6 was organized as a violent insurrection from the beginning.

Re: 30-year sentence for transporting zines is a five-alarm fire for free speech

#108

Post by anigbrowl »

paisawalla wrote: post #67
ipython wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, the January 6 defendants: - were a group of at least 1000 people - who, among other things, erected a noose on the capitol grounds, brought zip ties and weapons - forcefully overran several capital police barricades intended to deter their entrance - used any weapon available including poles etc to violently attack any police in their way Granted they did not explicitly shoot any federal agents with…

[flagged]

The different scale of intention was to overturn the results of a federal general election, effectively a coup to seize back control over the government. I can see why you consider the incident in Texas to be terrorism, but you want to ignore the entire point of the J6 event and pretend it was just some normal event where a few participants got a little out of hand? Get real.

Re: 30-year sentence for transporting zines is a five-alarm fire for free speech

#109

Post by daedrdev »

topgrain2 wrote: post #22
rationalist wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you, at least that article doesn't require an email address to read it. > One fired an AR-15 at the police, which goes beyond legitimate protest into inciting violence (and maybe even deliberate provocation). Uh, I think firing a gun at someone is a bit more than "inciting violence", more like attempted murder? The article doesn't say what the actual charges were. Was it tampering with evidence? Although 30 yea…

> Uh, I think firing a gun at someone is a bit more than "inciting violence", more like attempted murder? The shot cop had drawn a gun on someone who was running away. The judge didn’t even permit the defense to argue “defense of self or others” as a justification.

It is not legal to shoot the police who have their gun out. Considering they had much more firepower than the cops it's quite reasonable for the police to draw their gun

Re: 30-year sentence for transporting zines is a five-alarm fire for free speech

#110

Post by strictnein »

goatlover wrote: post #100
tumetab1 wrote: post #23

[flagged]

Don Lemon did no such thing. He covered the event as is his right as a journalist.

I don't think you're well aware of what actually went on if you think this is what happened. Also, journalists don't have special rights. None of the rights in the constitution depend on you being employed by a particular type of entity. Unless you think a Fox News anchor has more rights than you do, for some reason?

You don't have a right to enter a private establishment as a journalist. You don't have a right to interrupt a religious ceremony under the banner of free speech. Don Lemon was up front, in the church, with his mic in the pastor's face, while the congregation was still there and the pastor had already asked them to leave.

Post reply on HN