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

511–520 of 577 posts

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

#511

Post by BobbyJo »

vel0city wrote: post #495
BobbyJo wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 li…

> 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.

Let's say someone is obsessed with classic cars, and their neighbor's classic car goes missing. It then turns up in a storage unit owned by the guy obsessed with classic cars. Do you think their obsession with classic cars is relevant to the case? Keep in mind there is nothing wrong with loving classic cars.

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

#512

Post by topgrain2 »

pc86 wrote: post #482
topgrain2 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can it be defense of self or others, to shoot a cop who draws a lethal weapon on someone who's not an immediate threat? If it can't, the second amendment is even more pointless than it already appears to be.

Who decides whether or not someone is an immediate threat? Is "immediate threat" even the bar for a police officer to draw their weapon? Police can draw their weapons in situations civilians can't legally so I'm not sure the same standards apply. I don't think the second amendment is particularly relevant. The point of the second amendment is defense against a tyrannical government so by definition we're in extrajudi…

> I don't think the second amendment is particularly relevant. The point of the second amendment is defense against a tyrannical government so by definition we're in extrajudicial territory and don't care if it's legal or not.

Governments can be locally tyrannical, or tyrannical in-the-moment with the actors immediately involved, but not at all levels or not over a span of time as the pool of people involved grows.

In fact 100% of the cases I know about, of the second amendment's consequences being successfully used against a tyrannical government in the US, it's been a local government that's turned tyrannical (usually very-corrupt local cops and city or county government[s], coupled with a bunch of racism).

(To be clear, though, I'd not personally advance that fact as a strong point in the 2nd's favors as an actually useful-in-practice amendment for the supposed purpose of "defending liberty", as there are at least as many cases of private arms propping up local tyranny, or sowing political terror in the name of tyranny; "a mixed bag" would be a very generous reading of the history, and "net-harmful to the cause of securing liberty" is probably the fairer judgement)

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

#513

Post by vel0city »

Teever wrote: post #329
vel0city wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm very aware of mens rea.

Is thinking you're committing a crime when you're not mens rea? That's the hypothetical above.

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

#514

Post by vel0city »

BobbyJo wrote: post #511
vel0city wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 li…

> 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. Let's say someone is obsessed with classic cars, and their neighbor's classic car goes missing. It then turns up in a storage unit owned by the guy obsessed with classic cars. Do you think their obsession with classic cars is relevant to the case? Kee…

> Do you think their obsession with classic cars is relevant to the case?

I'd say no, just generally liking classic cars isn't material to the case. I've got tons of classic cars on my fridge from Rock Auto. Does that mean I'm likely to steal a car? Would someone removing those magnets from my fridge and giving it to a friend be hiding evidence if I were to steal a car?

Are people having a bible likely to bomb an abortion center? What percentage of people that have also read those zines likely to shoot ICE agents?

The car being in his garage is evidence. The messages of him telling his friend "check out this car I stole from that dude" is evidence. Generally being a fan of classic cars isn't.

If you're charged with illegally smoking marijuana is having a Dr. Dre CD in your car evidence? If your friend takes that CD out of your car to give to another friend is that a crime? Is that crime worth 30 years?? Wake up my dude.

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

#515

Post by wak90 »

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?

The "officer" was chasing people on foot and drew his weapon. He was then shot.

Given the Pretti and Good murders, in my opinion this is a clear cut case of self defense.

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

#516

Post by Teever »

vel0city wrote: post #513
Teever wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm very aware of mens rea. Is thinking you're committing a crime when you're not mens rea? That's the hypothetical above.

It’s a good question.

If I buy a bag of white powder thinking that it’s cocaine and it turns out the person selling it to me actually gave me a bag of flour did I commit a crime? What crime?

If I’m angry at someone and I decide to kill them so I go over to their house late at night and see them sitting upright on their couch watching TV and I shoot them from the window and flee but it’s later discovered that they died of a heart attack two hours before I shot them did I commit a crime? What crime?

If someone decides to commit suicide and they jump from an apartment building and coincidentally I decide to fire my gun out my window and as they pass by my window the bullet hits them in the head killing them instantly before they hit the ground am I guilty of a crime? What crime?

These kind of Law & Order / first year law school type hypotheticals are useful ways to analyze the hypothetical that you’re raising.

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

#517

Post by Manuel_D »

wak90 wrote: post #515
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?

The "officer" was chasing people on foot and drew his weapon. He was then shot. Given the Pretti and Good murders, in my opinion this is a clear cut case of self defense.

Resisting arrest isn't a justification for shooting a law enforcement officer. The law enforcement officer had a pretty solid reason to draw his firearm, given that the rioters also had firearms.

I'm really baffled by the line of reasoning here. People, armed with guns, tried to break into a government facility. The law enforcement officers proceeded to try and arrest the rioters, and the rioters shot one of the officers.

In what world is this justifiable self defense?

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

#518

Post by Sophira »

Obligatory reminder that what the US government considers to be extremist activities includes the obvious crime of being interested in privacy and anonymity[0].

(Hence all the age verification laws cropping up everywhere, most likely. Their primary goal isn't actually about protecting children.)

[0] https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/nsa-linux-journal-extre...

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

#519

Post by anigbrowl »

Auracle wrote: post #372
anigbrowl wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the most stupid refutation, surely you can do better. Besides the fact that several of them did bring guns or have them standing by, the ones focused on trying to derail the transfer of power were aware in advance that DC had very strict gun laws and were worried about getting caught before establishing momentum. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/oath-kee... Even setting that aside, do you r…

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." "By the way, Pennsylvania has now seen all of this. They didn't know because it was so quick. They had a vote. They voted. But now they see all this stuff, it's all come to light. Doesn't happen that fast. And they want to recertify their votes. They want to recertify. But the only wa…

So you're saying he expected them to mill about aimlessly chanting or whatever, and that Pence/the senators would somehow treat this as a revelation? Total BS. You're asking me to forget all the heated rhetoric leading up to and even during the event (eg Rudy Giuliani telling people to fight or they won't have a country any more).

If your version of events were true, why didn't Trump put out a message to calm down his supporters within minutes of the situation devolving into a riot, rather than hours later? What prevented him tweeting 'No, stop - I said peacefully and patriotically: No violence! PLEASE LEAVE THE CAPITOL IMMEDIATELY'?

Did he have bone spurs in his thumbs?

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

#520

Post by bawolff »

jeffbee wrote: post #499
bawolff wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Yes fair point, although i think in this case that would be pretty trivial to prove.
Post reply on HN