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

501–510 of 577 posts

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

#501

Post by alterom »

blockmarker wrote: post #413
alterom wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>murder by an armed group Oh yes, how could we have forgotten the crucial detail that every single person in the group had their hands on the trigger . Wait, that's because it didn't happen. One individual fired their weapon. (And whether that's a murder is very questionable, but let's set that aside). Nobody else should've been facing prosecution in this case.

Following that principle, Bin Laden wouldn't be responsible for 9/11, ISIS shouldn't have been restricted or attacked in any way, and the mafia should be fully legal. That would be absurd.

Great logical thinking!

Now pray tell why Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11, but 1 billion Muslims aren't.

They're in the same "group", right?

They have "safehouses" (mosques), "radical zines" (Quran), organized leadership (imams), regular gatherings, shared goals, group chats, and so on.

Clearly the entirety of 1B Muslims "conspired" to murder people on 9/11 and should all face harsh punishment "to send a message".

That's not at all absurd, isn't it?

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

#502

Post by alterom »

Findecanor wrote: post #338
laughing_man wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're part of a conspiracy, you take the blame for what other conspirators do. Take a look at felony murder statutes sometime.

But isn't there be a legal difference between a "conspiracy" that led to a bad situation and a "conspiracy to commit murder"?

Not if you want to eradicate any group that you don't like by planting undercover troublemakers / agent provacateurs in them!

One little trick human rights advocates don't want you to know about!

/s

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

#503

Post by alterom »

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.

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

....like putting a needle in a voodoo doll, fully believing it will result in the death of a person it represents.

>I'm pretty sure i'm just describing how our legal system actually works.

FIY, I just intentionally put a needle through your voodoo doll, fully believing it will result in your untimely death.

You might want to report me for attempted murder, and find out the defense between how our legal system actually works, and how you wish it worked.

If you're still reading this, I'm willing to repeat the above real world action of stabbing your voodoo doll as many times as it is necessary for it to work, in the presence of witnesses.

You're welcome.

>And if you think this is bad

This is not just bad, it's insane.

I'm not going to switch to another subject (conspiracy charges).

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

#504

Post by s1artibartfast »

TurdF3rguson wrote: post #404
s1artibartfast wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a far cry from murder and someone shouldnt carry a gun unless they are willing to use it. Inversely, someone shouldnt attack someone unless they accept the chance of death or harm.

I didn't say it was murder, I made the concession about self-defense, didn't I? A nice concession from you might be to admit that kids on your side maybe shouldn't attend protests with intention to do harm. That's basically where right and left don't see eye to eye on this.

Yeah I agree people should not go to protests with the objective to harm or destroy.

I dont think that is really the major party dividing line tho. I dont think most of the right thinks they went there with intention to harm, but to "defend".

I also think many people on the "left" take issue with someone putting themselved in a situation that could require lethal self defense, particularly over property.

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

#505

Post by s1artibartfast »

jayGlow wrote: post #500
Tadpole9181 wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The evidence presented at trial was that they spent the morning before the protest in Kenosha cleaning grafitti off a local school.

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

#506

Post by Manuel_D »

thunderfork wrote: post #491
Manuel_D wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, it's entirely viable to say a group of people did something. E.g. "a lynch mob killed ______." Sure only one member of the mob actually tied the noose, but the mob as a collective took that action.

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

#507

Post by Manuel_D »

the_real_cher wrote: post #449
Manuel_D wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

America shot a bunch of people in the 1700s protesting the King of England

No, the colonies didn't protest the rebelled. The colonies procured arms, raised an army, and fought attempts by the British to reassert control.

It wasn't a protest, it was a war.

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

#508

Post by Ukv »

copper-float wrote: post #493
expedition32 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> They brought guns and shot government officials

Only Benjamin Song, convicted of attempted murder/discharging a firearm, shot the police officer. Some others didn't bring firearms, were not in any planning chat (in which no violence was planned regardless), weren't at the protest or had already left, yet still received absurdly harsh sentences - that's the chilling effect.

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

#509

Post by mvdtnz »

KaiserPro wrote: post #393
cygx wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per Wikipedia, at least at one point in time, it was supposed to be. Quote: Prosecutors produced group chat logs showing that the participants had debated at length whether they should bring guns. The former reservist allegedly wrote that "Cops are not trained or equipped for more than one rifle, so it tends to make them back off." Other chat participants argued that a noise demonstration was low risk and the assumpt…

Ok, but isn't this textbook second amendment? as in well organised militia’s right to bear arms? They demonstrated a level of organisation much higher level than Rittenhouse ever did.

Americans are given the right to bear arms so they can overthrow a tyrannical government. Doesn't mean the government has to sit there and take it. And it certainly doesn't mean you can shoot cops and get away with it.

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

#510

Post by s1artibartfast »

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…

Where was this clear intent demonstrated? There was no evidence of them acting agressive or baiting people.

- There was photo evidence that he spent the morning cleaning grafitti of a shool in Kenosha.

- Multiple independent journalists testified they were calm and walking around calling "Medic! Does anyone need medical help?" or helping put out fires

- Independet protestors tesitfed that Rittenhouse helped them bandage injured

Regarding the bike, that would be murder. If you walked with your fancy bike and put yourself between it an a theif who attacked you for it, the answer would depend by state. Some let you stand your ground, some you have to flee until you are cornered.

It is still valid self defense if you choose walk your bike through the neighborhood knowing with certiany you will be attacked. If you are legally allowed to be there, the fault is still with the attacker.

Post reply on HN