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

491–500 of 577 posts

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

#491

Post by thunderfork »

Manuel_D wrote: post #260
thunderfork wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An individual shot someone, unless you think multiple people were helping pull the trigger.

This was a coordinated group of people who procured body armor, radios, and firearms, and planned to break into a Federal facility. Responsibility for this incident doesn't rest exclusively on the hands of the shooter. An analogy is Enrique Tarrio's arrest in the wake of January 6th. Right wingers complained that he wasn't even in the capital during the riot. But of course that's not evidence his innocence. Even thou…

Responsibility is a separate question from correctly reporting on the events that occurred. "A protestor shot someone" is correct, "a protestor shot someone and the group is culpable" could be argued, but "the protestors shot someone" is simply untrue.

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

#492

Post by copper-float »

fakedang wrote: post #9
arjie wrote: post #5

It's pretty straightforward that if someone tells you to hide something because they've been arrested and they think it ties them to some criminal act, and then you hide it, you're an accessory to the crime. 30 years for that seems harsh though I anticipate they will be pardoned by the next Democratic Party President. Describing such an act without the obvious context is a pretty good way to point out that it's parti…

If it costs 30 years for transporting zines, how much is treason and conspiracy to overthrow the government worth?

[flagged]

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

#493

Post by copper-float »

expedition32 wrote: post #19
Ukv wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The 30 year sentence was for hiding documentation [...] it wasn't just "transporting Zines" As far as I can tell, the moving of zines (he was pulled over and had a box in his car) is what's being presented as "hiding documentation" - not something beyond that. > being sought under a federal warrant Timeline seems to be that a warrant was obtained after pulling him over ("Sanchez-Estrada was then arrested on state t…

Chilling effect on demonstrations. If you attend one were someone starts shooting you become an accomplice. And ofcourse this also leaves the door open for a "false flag" incident.

How completely dishonest to call this a demonstration. They brought guns and shot government officials. Trying to kill people you disagree with isn't demonstrating, it's terrorism.

So insane for people to defend this.

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

#494

Post by copper-float »

N_Lens wrote: post #349
antoniojtorres wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I feel like I’m going insane reading some of these comments.

HN swings pretty far right.

Not sure how you're getting this. 90% of these comments are as left leaning as they come.

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

#495

Post by vel0city »

BobbyJo wrote: post #479
vel0city wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If these zines were like "here's how to attack an ICE facility" or directly promoting imminent violence against officers I'd understand. Is that what these zines were about? From the zines I've seen they're all pretty general anarchist kind of materials. One of the zines was arguing the morality of squatting a residence. Is that evidence of committing violence against an ICE facility? If there really was materials di…

> Is that evidence of committing violence against an ICE facility? Again, the zines relevance isn't proving they did it . It's providing context and intent. If you can't see the connection between anarchist pamphlets and trying to raid a government facility, then I don't know what else to say. The "imminent violence" only matters if the pamphlets were themselves the crime, and they were not. To go back toy earlier ex…

> If you can't see the connection between anarchist pamphlets and trying to raid a government facility, then I don't know what else to say.

My point is, its not illegal to just generally be an anarchist. Generally being an anarchist shouldn't be related to evidence of one assaulting a government facility. Once again, if these zines were like "how to raid a government facility", sure I'd see it. But it doesn't seem like these zines were that kind of material. Once again, if they are then by all means let me know.

Let's change some facts here for a different perspective. Instead of an ICE facility, its an abortion provider. Instead of anarchist, its a group of Christian extremists targeting the facility. Would owning bibles be evidence of a crime? Clearly it shows a connection to the group, they all read this stuff! Extremists which have previously bombed abortion clinics have cited the bible in justification for their actions. Would moving those bibles be trying to hide evidence? And once again, evidence of what? That you attended the same book club as others who went on to commit crimes? That you're a Christian or that you're an anarchist? Is it illegal to be these things, to think these thoughts?

Also, this then implies the books you keep on your bookshelf will be used as evidence against you, even if they don't directly pertain to the crimes you're charged with. Is that really the world you want to live in? I know that's not the world I'd like to live in. And it seems like that's the world one political party is moving towards, continuing to march towards a world where ownership of certain books implicate you as a criminal.

> Sounds like a completely separate problem that needs solving IMO.

We can solve it by voting out those who pushed for that outcome and offered the plea deal. They happen to be Republicans these days and are running for a US Senate seat in Texas.

> sentencing is mostly left to judges, which are not elected political officials.

39 states have elected judges, several of which are directly partisan elections. I do agree in this case this is federal court which means they aren't directly elected. However, they are appointed and confirmed by elected political officials. This happens to be a judge appointed by Donald Trump in 2019. So once again, yes, this is an outcome of voting for Republicans.

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

#496

Post by [deleted] »

ricardobeat wrote: post #388
smsm42 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were the part of the organized criminal group that executed the shooting and later tried to help other criminals to avoid responsibility. If you are part of the group that does the crime, everybody in the group shares the responsibility (not equally, some part of it extends to accomplices) - not only she immediate shooter, but people who helped him to do it too. > The “crime” investigation obstructed by hiding t…

I have no words. You are not responding logically to what I wrote. Good luck to all americans.

[deleted]

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

#497

Post by MSFT_Edging »

zzzeek wrote: post #451
MSFT_Edging wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC these were state charges, not federal. Only chance at the zine-hider seeing actual justice is texas doing a blue flip(hell freezing over).

> Daniel “Des” Sanchez Estrada was sentenced to 30 years in federal prison for transporting a box of zines he didn’t even write. federal

Whoops, not sure where I read they were state charges.

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

#498

Post by bawolff »

alterom wrote: post #303
bawolff wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take an action in the real world it is no longer a thought crime.

>think of a crime >take an action in the real world (not a crime) >it's a crime You're not make it any better, you're just repeating your desire to prosecute thoughtcrimes. "Your honor, he wanted the President dead and he breathed ! That's an action in the real world ! Off with his head!" By your logic putting a pin in a voodoo doll is a crime. I implore you, abscond and perish promptly with such twisted cognizance o…

To be clear, by action i mean an action the person believes would result in the crime in question occuring.

> your desire

I don't think it's my desire. I'm pretty sure i'm just describing how our legal system actually works.

And if you think this is bad, go look up the requirements for a conspiracy charge which are even less than this.

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

#499

Post by jeffbee »

bawolff wrote: post #498
alterom wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>think of a crime >take an action in the real world (not a crime) >it's a crime You're not make it any better, you're just repeating your desire to prosecute thoughtcrimes. "Your honor, he wanted the President dead and he breathed ! That's an action in the real world ! Off with his head!" By your logic putting a pin in a voodoo doll is a crime. I implore you, abscond and perish promptly with such twisted cognizance o…

To be clear, by action i mean an action the person believes would result in the crime in question occuring. > your desire I don't think it's my desire. I'm pretty sure i'm just describing how our legal system actually works. And if you think this is bad, go look up the requirements for a conspiracy charge which are even less than this.

Yes but, again for clarification, for the specific infraction that is obstruction of justice there has to have been some possibility that the action taken or intended could have or did actually obstruct justice. There government must prove "a nexus between the defendant’s conduct and a particular official proceeding before a judge or court of the United States".

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

#500

Post by jayGlow »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #477
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.

There was never an argument that the 30 second clip shows self defense. The problem is that Kyle drove out of his way with a non-defensive firearm, with a clear intent to put himself in that situation so he could murder someone. Let's say I want to experience killing someone without consequences. I leave a nice bike completely unlocked in the bad part of town and hide in the shadows, then when someone tries to steal…

he drove to a town he worked in that's not out of the way. 2 of the 3 who attacked him drove similar distances or further and one of them had an illegal fire arm, were they all putting themselves in a situation to murder someone?
Post reply on HN