Defiant Oath Keepers founder gets 18 years in prison, longest 1/6 sentence yet

[civilwarbuff]

It's a good thing then that's not what Rhodes et al were actually prosecuted or found guilty for.

Talking about doing something and actually having the means and ability to do it are very different things.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

Always nice seeing So's Law validated.

??????????????????

 

[Bradskii]

Yawn..........................

Does being corrected bore you?

 

[Bradskii]

Talking about doing something and actually having the means and ability to do it are very different things.....

Good heavens. You actually don't know what sediton means.

 

[friend of]

Overkill. Just a witch hunt of the right wing ppl in USA

 

[Arcangl86]

Talking about doing something and actually having the means and ability to do it are very different things.....

It's a conspiracy charge. The planning to do something is the illegal part, not the plan being feasible.

 

[loveofourlord]

The guy definitely deserves to do some time for his role in the events that played out.

Although, the sentencing for the Jan 6th goons seems to be disproportionate to the sentences people get for other crimes.

Rhodes gets 18 years...

These guys get 12 & 6 years respectively for dabbling in illegal child videos

https://www.fox4news.com/news/josh-...ppropriate contentography-conviction-extended

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ild-inappropriate contentography/70238351007/

Jacob Chansley got a 3 year sentence (the buffalo guy)

There are armed robbers who get shorter sentences than that



Is it possible that 2 things can be true at the same time?
Being able to acknowledge that people do need to do some time for their role in illegal acts, while still recognizing that there's a political component to this and that it's possible that there's some over-sentencing happening because some folks want to prove a point?

Ohhh ohhh I can play this too, how about there are times where you get a harsher penalty for doing pot then you do for child molesting in republican areas. The problem isn't with this sentence, but how terrible the penaltiees are for child inappropriate content and molestation accross the states, it's where some areas don't even consider it a big deal to go arrest someone.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Does being corrected bore you?

No, but listening to an Aussie lawyer lecture Americans on US law does......

Good heavens. You actually don't know what sediton means.

Good golly Miss Molly everyone knows what sedition means.....well, almost everyone it seems.......​

​

Rallies, Protests, and Demonstrations​

The denouement came in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The case arose when a small group of Ku Klux Klan members in Ohio invited a television news station to film their rally. The handful of KKK members in attendance brandished rifles and firearms, made racist and anti-Semitic statements, and declared that they were going to march on Congress. The leader of the group was arrested and convicted under Ohio's version of the California law that had been used in the 1927 Whitney case. The Court overruled Whitney, declaring that subsequent decisions, including inexplicably Dennis, "have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or regulate advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

The case gave rise to the Brandenburg test to determine when speech transgresses the line from mere advocacy, which is protected by the First Amendment, to incitement, which is not. That test anticipates that the unprotected speech intentionally produce a high likelihood of real imminent harm. Within a few years, the Court had the opportunity to put that analysis to its own test.

Hess v. Indiana (1973) involved a student antiwar demonstration that had gotten out of hand and resulted in the police being called in riot gear. One student was arrested after he shouted, "We'll take the . . . street later." The Court was convinced that there was no imminent danger and interpreted his remark as advising students to stand down for now, with a suggestion that the illegal action of occupying the street could be resumed later. In the final analysis, the Court concluded that there was no evidence that "his words were intended to produce, and likely to produce, imminent disorder."

Soon, in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982), the Court revisited the issue. The NAACP, as part of its civil rights efforts, had organized a boycott of white-owned businesses in Claiborne County, Miss., that allegedly discriminated against African-Americans. During the organization of the boycott, one NAACP official had said, "If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we're gonna break your damn neck." Several businesses sued the NAACP for business losses incurred as a result of the boycott, specifically citing the NAACP's threat of violence against customers. A Mississippi court awarded the businesses $1.25 million.

Applying the Brandenburg test, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed. The First Amendment, the Court declared, does not permit the imposition of liability for nonviolent speech activities, but only for the consequences of violent conduct. Nor could liability be imposed on a group, some of whose members committed acts of violence, merely because of association with that group, which itself possessed only lawful goals, the Court added. Advocacy of imminent violent actions was first required.

The Court recognized that in "the passionate atmosphere in which the speeches were delivered, they might have been understood as inviting an unlawful form of discipline or, at least, intending to create a fear of violence where or not improper discipline was specifically intended." Still, "mere advocacy of the use of force or violence does not remove speech from the protection of the First Amendment."

That statement remains the bottom line on how the First Amendment views mere advocacy of violence. Today, when advocacy groups and some parents point the finger of blame on media depictions of violence on television and in lyrics, videogames, movies, and books, the law takes another view. As long as there is time for cooler heads to counter speech we find reprehensible or even dangerous, as long as the moment is not so enveloped in passion that deliberation cannot take place, each person is responsible for his or her own actions and the speaker-advocate cannot be hung with responsibility for their conduct. Experience has taught that grave dangers accompany any other course.

The Supreme Court Grapples with Free Speech and Sedition | Encyclopedia.com

The Supreme Court Grapples with Free Speech and SeditionRobert S. Peck Source for information on The Supreme Court Grapples with Free Speech and Sedition: The Bill of Rights 1 dictionary.

www.encyclopedia.com

Try sticking to Aussie law......

 

[civilwarbuff]

It's a conspiracy charge. The planning to do something is the illegal part, not the plan being feasible.

The intent and activity of sedition still needs to be proved......
See #88

 

[Bradskii]

No, but listening to an Aussie lawyer lecture Americans on US law does......

​

I'm afraid you wasted a lot of time for nothing. All those links and cut 'n' paste refer to First Amendment rights. Specifically comments that could lead to violence. There were multiple examples to ensure that you knew exactly what was being discussed.

It did not refer to the actual planning of violence. That was oh so plainly clear in all the documentation. So planning, organising and arming oneself for an attempt to overthrow the authority of the state is not a First Amendment issue by any stretch of anyone's imagination. It is sedition. The fact that it came to nothing is irrelevant.

 

[Bradskii]

The intent and activity of sedition still needs to be proved......
See #88

Guess what the court did. It proved it. It was in all the papers. I'm surprised you missed it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The intent and activity of sedition still needs to be proved......
See #88

It was by three different juries including the one in Stewart Rhodes case.

 

[USincognito]

??????????????????

It's an Internet law I coined after noticing a pattern with comments starting with So.

Whenever a response begins with "So..." the likeliness that whatever follows will be a straw man nears 100%.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It's an Internet law I coined after noticing a pattern with comments starting with So.

Whenever a response begins with "So..." the likeliness that whatever follows will be a straw man nears 100%.

I did notice you could not respond to the post itself......just say'n.......

 

[essentialsaltes]

I did notice you could not respond to the post itself......just say'n.......

It was such a laughable boner, there's really no need to respond. But if you insist...

"So entering the Capital [sic] and putting your feet up on Pelosi's desk or walking off with a podium is now sedition?"

Pelosi desk guy was not charged with sedition.
His crimes include obstruction of an official proceeding, entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds with a deadly weapon, and theft of government property.

Podium guy was not charged with sedition.
He pleaded guilty in November to a charge of entering and remaining in a restricted building or ground, a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of one year in prison.