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

561–570 of 577 posts

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

#561

Post by green_wheel »

pnt12 wrote: post #382
green_wheel wrote: post #334

Even if he did exactly what they said he did, no way that's worth 30 years. But people really need to realize that the justice system has been and never will be "blind" or "fair" or whatever you may think it is. It is wielded by those in power largely as they see fit, so keep that in mind if you're thinking about messing with the feds.

It seems especially bad now. This relativistic mindset is really bad for critical thought: "oh, it was never 100% fair". Well, if it was 80% earlier, it seems approaching 20% now. It's a whole new level.

Everything seems worse now because you have access to the Internet. And it doesn't really matter when it was worse. It's bad now and you should be aware of what the government is capable of if you're thinking about fucking with them.

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

#562

Post by tanseydavid »

piltdownman wrote: post #456
blockmarker wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fireworks are explosives, and people are hurt by misusing them. Just because they are less harmful than grenades doesn't mean that they are harmless, and throwing them at someone is clearly with the intention of harming them. And well, shooting them with rifles is also clearly intended to harm them.

Reducto ad absurdum. Up there with declaring Placards or Air Horns as 'offensive rioting equipment' as people can (and are) hurt through their misuse, and arguing that just because they're less harmless than an ICBM doesn't mean they're harmless. Fireworks are first and foremost Pyrotechnics - it's only a specific subset of fireworks that contain any sort of 'explosive' element. Short of Simpsons-esque escapades invo…

How many people get injured each year in the US by Placards or Air Horns? And then answer the same question about fireworks...

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

#563

Post by roncinephile »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #560
roncinephile wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> appeal to the "non-existent" center This is an insane notion. The center decides all elections in a two party system.

Then why does the US have a far right gov't?

Stretch out the time horizon. There's been a consistent tick tock pattern that stretches back to 1776. The United States vacillates from one extreme to another. It's our defining characteristic. The people who find themselves drunk with power become the caricature that disgusts the non-political center into voting them out of power so that a new cadre of political leeches can take office and become their own kind of disgusting caricature.

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

#564

Post by BobbyJo »

vel0city wrote: post #555
BobbyJo wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd say no, just generally liking classic cars isn't material to the case. Every lawyer would disagree, but you do you.

So you do think that I'm likely to steal a car because I've got some magnets on a fridge? When the neighbor's car went missing I should be the prime suspect because I shop at Rock Auto from time to time? You do want to live in a world where something as innocent as magnets on a fridge with some classic cars are used as evidence you stole a car? I guess my house should just be devoid of any kind of media, artwork, des…

Honest question: Let's say you had a neighbor who was always asking about your daughter and telling you how lovely she is. Then your daughter goes missing. Would you not want you neighbor questioned on the grounds that he was overly focused on your daughter?

Keep in mind that your hypothetical daughter is 20 years old, and there is nothing illegal or wrong with your neighbor liking her a little too much.

Follow up, another neighbor has magnets of a Ford Taurus. Do you think they should be questioned as well, with just as much urgency?

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

#565

Post by cmrdporcupine »

roncinephile wrote: post #563
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why does the US have a far right gov't?

Stretch out the time horizon. There's been a consistent tick tock pattern that stretches back to 1776. The United States vacillates from one extreme to another. It's our defining characteristic. The people who find themselves drunk with power become the caricature that disgusts the non-political center into voting them out of power so that a new cadre of political leeches can take office and become their own kind of…

There is no political spectrum that makes sense where you could define Biden or Clinton as any kind of "extreme."

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

#566

Post by bawolff »

Chinjut wrote: post #558
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.

What if you believe (correctly) that a corrupt government intends to punish you exorbitantly beyond reason for possession of these zines? Is it still immoral to move the zines? Is it so immoral that it therefore justifies 30 years of imprisonment for moving the zines?

> What if you believe (correctly) that a corrupt government intends to punish you exorbitantly beyond reason for possession of these zines?

Well the belief is incorrect, since to date nobody was punished for possessing them, and there is no reason to suspect anyone would be.

> Is it still immoral to move the zines?

Morality and legality are totally separate things. Whether it is immoral depends on which system of morality you subscribe to, although i think you could make a reasonable argument that it was immoral in most popular morality systems.

That said, i think your framing does a disservice. The question is, is it immoral to cover up a crime. The method used to do the cover up is irrelavent.

> therefore justifies 30 years

I tend to think 30 years is a bit steep, personally.

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

#567

Post by BobbyJo »

rapidaneurism wrote: post #345
BobbyJo wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, I meant in terms of discussion, not in terms of legal proceedings. Obviously these people were formally charged in a court of law on legal grounds and I assume had their constitutional rights afforded to them. I meant more along the lines of "30 years for hiding a zine" being a weird take. It is logically inconsistent, IMO, to both want to fight a system, and want to be afforded its privileges.

>It is logically inconsistent, IMO, to both want to fight a system, and want to be afforded its privileges. But isn't this exactly what people do when they vote for a different government?

No, you're operating within the confines of the system when you vote to change it. Voting to change the system, in the US, is part of the system. By fighting I meant in ways outside of the system. To me its saying both "the system does not apply to me" and "the system should apply to me in a nicer way".

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

#568

Post by Manuel_D »

wak90 wrote: post #557
Manuel_D wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This group showed up at the ICE facility with a dozen sets of body armor, multiple firearms, and radios. They shot fireworks at the facility, and when the law enforcement officers went to go arrest them a member of the group shot the officer. Those facts are not disputed. Using deadly force in self defense against law enforcement officer is only justified when that law enforcement officer is acting outside the bounds…

> Using deadly force in self defense against law enforcement officer is only justified when that law enforcement officer is acting outside the bounds of the law. I'd say I'm astonished but I'm not.

What are you astonished by? Do you think lethal force in self defense against law enforcement is justified, even when the police are conducting a lawful arrest?

Let's say someone robs a liquor store at gunpoint. The police chase him down, with their guns drawn - which is totally reasonable given that they're trying to arrest a criminal who is armed with a gun. The robber turns and sees a pair of police officers with their guns trained on him. The robber shots the two cops dead.

Is this a justified shooting? By your logic, yes it is. The robber saw two police officers with their guns drawn, that meets your criteria for the law enforcement officers presenting a deadly threat.

On my end, I absolutely am astonished by your attempts to justify shooting law enforcement officers.

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

#569

Post by int_19h »

incompatible wrote: post #210
int_19h wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The historical antifa is the German Antifaschistische Aktion. You can read about some of the things those guys engaged in - they didn't just target Nazis - to see why the association is controversial.

Yes, they fought the Nazis in the late 1920s - early 1930s. That seems to have been their main focus, what other things did they engage in? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion

"After the Communist International's abrupt turn in its Third Period from 1928, the KPD regarded the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) as its main adversary and adopted the position that the SPD was the main fascist party in Germany. This was based on the theory of social fascism that had been proclaimed by Joseph Stalin and that was supported by the Comintern during the late 1920s and early 1930s, which held that social democracy was a variant of fascism. Consequently, the KPD held that it was "the only anti-fascist party" in Germany and stated that "fighting fascism means fighting the SPD just as much as it means fighting Hitler and the parties of Brüning."

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

#570

Post by account42 »

MSFT_Edging wrote: post #441
cbarnes99 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that the average sentence for murder in the US is 15 years. And it is not actually a "designated terrorist organization". The government is claiming they are a "domestic terrorist organization" which isnt a thing under US law, additionally, there is no organization to speak of.

The important thing to note here, is because it's not a real organization, but treated like one, they can simply tie anyone against the admin to a "designated terrorist organization" and put them away for decades with little evidence. As they did here.

As opposed to real terrorist organizations where they can just phone up terrorist HR to confirm if someone is a member?
Post reply on HN