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

Post by mulmen » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 2:10 AM UTC

BobbyJo wrote: post #154

godwinson__4-8 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously because the nature of demonstrations as you describe are predicated on a counter party that follows the law. For example one may demonstrate to get a law changed, on the premise that they will not be shot on sight or otherwise extrajudically punished for assembling. Why would you expect entities of the state that behave illegally to engender an opposition to follow legal norms? This is not new in America. 2…

If you're fighting the executive branch, then legality goes out the window and any outrage about punishment becomes moot, no? Expecting the system you intended to subvert/dismantle to save you is a bit of a weird ask.

Post by mulmen » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 2:14 AM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #192

shimman wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What hogwash. Resistance is as American as the founding of the country, acting like there is a "right way" to protest is deeply antihuman.

The "protestors" shot someone, if that's not the wrong way to protest then what is?

Post by int_19h » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 2:17 AM UTC

incompatible wrote: post #149

ipython wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can anyone seriously define “antifa”? What would the pardon read? “Anyone who is anti-fascism is hereby pardoned…”? Edit: downvoting me doesn’t answer the question. If you have a definition please reply! If nobody can define “antifa” how the heck can you prosecute someone for being a member of it?

Wikipedia uses "a left-wing anti-fascist and anti-racist political movement." Until recently, there was nothing controversial or illegal about being any of those things.

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 2:17 AM UTC

Auracle wrote: post #181

AdieuToLogic wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being aware that he was moving the zines to obstruct a federal felony investigation is surely relevant. Intent is an important aspect of crime. A sentence of 30 years in prison for obstructing an investigation is excessive, especially when compared to the "base offense level" of Involuntary Manslaughter (section 2A1.4 found here[0]) being between 12 and 22, roughly translating to between 10 and 51 months in prison[…

I don't disagree, but our justice system is absolutely rife with unequal sentences. That doesn't make it right, but it doesn't mean we should go crazy over an individual instance of it when the whole system should somehow be overhauled.

Post by AdieuToLogic » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 2:22 AM UTC

dmix wrote: post #179

AdieuToLogic wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obviously prosecutors always present things in the worst possible way for defendants ... True, that is their job. Problem is, it is the judge's job to determine appropriate punishment for the crime once it is proven the defendant is responsible for same. 30 years (360 months) for a first time offender is roughly equivalent to Second Degree Murder (see section 2A1.2 here[0]). Even assuming the defendant has 13 or mo…

That sentence very likely won't hold up on appeal as it's obviously very very excessive and non-standard. That said, I don't believe the commenters above were defending the sentencing. They were debating whether it was a legitimate charge and whether the article explained it fairly.