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

321–330 of 577 posts

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

#321

Post by duskdozer »

9x39 wrote: post #257
OutOfHere wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think if you append "with the intention to commit a violent crime" to each item on the list, you'll see the issue. No, that doesn't fly, and the intent isn't clear. Even if there were intent, those three bullet points still are not an crime or valid charges. As a member of the jury, I would reject them 100%. Extending your pitiful logic just a few steps, people would be locked up for 30 years just for being born.…

The actual members of the jury convicted the defendants though, accepting the .gov's evidence and witnesses that these individually innocuous elements together established their links to each other, collectively murdering an officer in the course of an attack.

What officer was murdered?

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

#322

Post by goatlover »

simianparrot wrote: post #315
Aeolun wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or are you saying you'd be happy to have one of these shot at your face? Given the choice between the fireworks and an actual grenade? Yeah, absolutely.

[flagged]

So can rubber bullets and tear gas canisters. Can't expect the government to act lawlessly and there not be pushback.

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

#323

Post by BobbyJo »

vel0city wrote: post #185
BobbyJo wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not illegal "because you think its illegal", it's illegal because "you had a court order to provide things that are relevant and you instead hid things you thought were relevant". If I hide someone who I think did a crime to help them escape police, I've now implicated myself in the crime, whether or not my trying to hide them actually caused them to get away with it.

> it's illegal because "you had a court order to provide things that are relevant and you instead hid things you thought were relevant" And yet when Trump does it with classified documents its not a problem. Where's his 30 years? Did he even have a warrant issued to him related to these documents? Are these zines even relevant evidence? Is everyone who has these magazines also now a criminal? What about other radical…

> "but what about.."

I don't know.

> Did he even have a warrant issued to him related to these documents?

Yes. A zine put together by a group that later goes on to commit a crime together, that promotes the ideologies underlying the crime, feels like the kind of thing a search warrant/subpoena would apply to. The fact that the person involved in the crime asked that they be hidden makes it pretty obvious that they saw it that way as well.

> Are these zines even relevant evidence?

Yes.

> Is everyone who has these magazines also now a criminal?

No. Things can be legal and evidence of ill intent at the same time.

> What about other radical anti-government political pamphlets like Common Sense?

If the editor(s) of that pamphlet went on to commit a crime of a political nature, no doubt their relationship with the pamphlet would be evidence used against them. It would also still be perfectly legal to have, and legal for others to continue publishing.

> Seems like quite a different thing than moving some political pamphlets.

It is, but I think the core idea of involving yourself in the crime by way of trying to hide evidence etc. is similar at least.

> What's the relevance again for the ownership of political pamphlets to committing crimes?

Depends on the crime. If they had robbed a Wendy's, probably no relevance. If they attacked an ICE building and the pamphlets established ill intent toward ICE, probably a lot of relevance.

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

#324

Post by lobf »

mindslight wrote: post #274
glitch003 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

she called her husband, from jail, and asked him to move them so they couldn't be used in court against her. she said "do whatever you have to do". the cops listened to the phone call, watched him load them into the car and arrested him on the drive. i think it's pretty straightforward that she was asking for his help in obstructing the investigation by hiding potential evidence against her.

Lawful investigation and prosecution would of course not hinge upon the contents of political publications. As such, any obstruction was purely aimed at the inevitable two minute hate by the addled autocrat about how antifa is hiding everywhere, making his coffee too cold and his food not taste as good as it used to.

Well regardless, the obvious answer is that you simply turn your zines in to slurry in a bucket or sink, you don’t drive them anywhere.

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

#325

Post by bikezen »

stronglikedan wrote: post #310
paulryanrogers wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

J6 insurrectionists got many years less than 30, for doing far more than hiding very weak circumstantial evidence.

[flagged]

You realize that there multiple armed contingents planning and organizing to literally raid the Capitol for J6 right? That's why the pround boys were a focus of much of the investigation.

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

#326

Post by 9x39 »

duskdozer wrote: post #321
9x39 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual members of the jury convicted the defendants though, accepting the .gov's evidence and witnesses that these individually innocuous elements together established their links to each other, collectively murdering an officer in the course of an attack.

What officer was murdered?

Ah, attempted murder since he surprisingly lived, it looks like. No harm, no foul, right?

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

#327

Post by smsm42 »

croes wrote: post #295
smsm42 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Daniel “Des” Sanchez Estrada also didn’t shoot an enforcement officer. He wasn’t even a the protest. For being at the protest without shooting anyone his wife got 70 years. Again your turn for an explanation.

[flagged]

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

#329

Post by Teever »

vel0city wrote: post #172
bawolff wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that is the relavent question. Did he move the items because he believed that they were evidence being sought by the police? I don't really care if they are actually evidence of something or not. I care if the accused believed they were and moved them for that purpose.

Let's say someone is driving 35MPH. They think "oh snap, I think the speed limit is 30MPH here!". The posted speed limit is actually 40MPH. Was this person speeding or not? Should a cop ticket them for thinking they're doing something wrong, even if everything they were doing was legal? Did they even think the zines were implicated as evidence? Were the zines implicated as evidence? What crimes were being committed b…

You might find this interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

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

#330

Post by stale2002 »

TurdF3rguson wrote: post #298
s1artibartfast wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still dont see how people could have watched the videos and not seen a clear self defense angle.

It may have been self defense in the moment, but he also went out there looking for trouble and found it.

If it was illegal to go somewhere "lookin for trouble" I think that you would see a whole lot of people arrested from certain groups that you likely wouldn't want to be in prison.
Post reply on HN