3 ms·

Disrupting any official proceeding is now a federal felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison, so 60s style anti-government protest would be shut down quick

Disrupting any official proceeding is now a federal felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison, so 60s style anti-government protest would be shut down quickly. The Jan 6th trials (most of which were based on that charge) set a precedent that will haunt us for a long time.

matheusmoreira 3y ago
Set a precedent for the rest of the world as well. Similar protests in my country were also suppressed, in direct reference to the US ones.
- morbicer 3y ago
  What's the alternative? Let hundred weirdos storm your Capitol and let them rule? Smash a democratic institution and then leave them to go home unpunished? You can't cosplay as a revolutionary. If you want to do insurrection you have to expect the government will surpress you and bring a force that can actually perform revolution.
  - leereeves 3y ago
    > let them rule? Smash a democratic institution? Were either of those real possibilities on Jan 6th? Did the people charged even think they were? It was quite clear, even to them I imagine, that they didn't have "a force that can actually perform revolution".
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - morbicer 3y ago
      If I only "pretend" to rob a store, don't you think I should get prosecuted? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    I don't know what the alternative is for the US matters. That's for US citizens to decide. Personally I don't believe there was any fraud in the US elections. I know about my own country. And what happened here is this: they saw what Trump did and were seriously alarmed. In order to stop our Trump equivalent from winning, the supreme court basically staged its own silent revolution. They gave themselves the power to do whatever they wanted. Then they implemented censorship, unheard of in Brazil since the military dictatorship of the 20th century. Blatantly unconstitutional censorship. Then they went to public events to brag about all of it. How would you feel if an unelected judge censored Trump and then publicly bragged about how he defeated Trumpism? Smash a democratic institution? This is not a democracy. Unelected judges are running this country. They tried to pass "anti-fake news" censorship laws, Google even campaigned against it and got arbitrarily fined by these judges. The law was rejected. Then about a week ago they rammed the law through anyway via "electoral court resolutions". They determine what's fake, of course. Literal ministry of truth. They regulated AI too. What do you do when your supreme court seizes power like this? What do you do when the guys who are supposed to enforce the constitution start shitting on it? The police obeys their "court orders". Do you see the point I'm making? They're arresting and persecuting everyone. People who protested this got worse sentences than murderers, rapists, drug traffickers. Seriously doubt there will be any kind of civil war. Unlike the US, nobody here is willing to die over this cursed, corrupted land. The only solution for Brazil is the airport, as they say. Who knows though, maybe our current "president" will anger the israelis so much with his palestinian support they will nuke Brasília off the map. I mean, this guy is a communist so out of touch he publicly accused the jewish nation of holocausting the palestinians.
seanhunter 3y ago
_Corruptly_ disrupting an official proceeding (or doing so by threats or force) is a felony, and it became one under Sarbannes-Oxley in 2001, so not just as a result of Jan 6th.[1] [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505
- leereeves 3y ago
  Yes, but that was originally written to punish evidence tampering. The Jan 6th trials were the first time it was applied to protests, and that use is so novel that the Supreme Court has agreed to review it.[1] And the "corruptly" term was effectively eliminated by UNITED STATES v. ROBERTSON (2023)[2], when the appeals court ruled that it means simply “acting ‘with consciousness of wrongdoing.’” (mens rea) and with “independently unlawful means or purpose”. Almost all disruptive protests involve some minor "independently unlawful means" (such as jaywalking, trespassing, disorderly conduct, or failure to comply with a police officer), so they fit that definition. The court's example to illustrate the meaning of the term was: "a witness in a court proceeding may refuse to testify by invoking his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, thereby obstructing or impeding the proceeding, but he does not act corruptly". The court actually said that taking the fifth is obstructing an official proceeding (but not corruptly). Imagine how little it takes to commit a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison now. Have you seen the movie "The Trial of the Chicago 7"? If that happened today, not only could they be convicted of "corruptly" disrupting an official proceeding for the protests, they could be convicted for their behavior during the trial. (In the latter case, the independently unlawful means would be behavior that was in contempt of court) 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_v._United_States 2: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dc-circuit/115332314.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dc-circuit/115332314.ht... PS: I should add that the 20 years comes from a different law with the same phrasing, 18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, section (c)(2). The existence of two laws with the same phrasing, both for specific crimes (evidence tampering and witness tampering), makes it clear that the legislature didn't intend for these laws to apply broadly. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512#c_2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512#c_2
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

matheusmoreira 3y ago

Set a precedent for the rest of the world as well. Similar protests in my country were also suppressed, in direct reference to the US ones.

morbicer 3y ago
What's the alternative? Let hundred weirdos storm your Capitol and let them rule? Smash a democratic institution and then leave them to go home unpunished? You can't cosplay as a revolutionary. If you want to do insurrection you have to expect the government will surpress you and bring a force that can actually perform revolution.
- leereeves 3y ago
  > let them rule? Smash a democratic institution? Were either of those real possibilities on Jan 6th? Did the people charged even think they were? It was quite clear, even to them I imagine, that they didn't have "a force that can actually perform revolution".
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - morbicer 3y ago
    If I only "pretend" to rob a store, don't you think I should get prosecuted? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  I don't know what the alternative is for the US matters. That's for US citizens to decide. Personally I don't believe there was any fraud in the US elections. I know about my own country. And what happened here is this: they saw what Trump did and were seriously alarmed. In order to stop our Trump equivalent from winning, the supreme court basically staged its own silent revolution. They gave themselves the power to do whatever they wanted. Then they implemented censorship, unheard of in Brazil since the military dictatorship of the 20th century. Blatantly unconstitutional censorship. Then they went to public events to brag about all of it. How would you feel if an unelected judge censored Trump and then publicly bragged about how he defeated Trumpism? Smash a democratic institution? This is not a democracy. Unelected judges are running this country. They tried to pass "anti-fake news" censorship laws, Google even campaigned against it and got arbitrarily fined by these judges. The law was rejected. Then about a week ago they rammed the law through anyway via "electoral court resolutions". They determine what's fake, of course. Literal ministry of truth. They regulated AI too. What do you do when your supreme court seizes power like this? What do you do when the guys who are supposed to enforce the constitution start shitting on it? The police obeys their "court orders". Do you see the point I'm making? They're arresting and persecuting everyone. People who protested this got worse sentences than murderers, rapists, drug traffickers. Seriously doubt there will be any kind of civil war. Unlike the US, nobody here is willing to die over this cursed, corrupted land. The only solution for Brazil is the airport, as they say. Who knows though, maybe our current "president" will anger the israelis so much with his palestinian support they will nuke Brasília off the map. I mean, this guy is a communist so out of touch he publicly accused the jewish nation of holocausting the palestinians.

seanhunter 3y ago

_Corruptly_ disrupting an official proceeding (or doing so by threats or force) is a felony, and it became one under Sarbannes-Oxley in 2001, so not just as a result of Jan 6th.[1] [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

leereeves 3y ago
Yes, but that was originally written to punish evidence tampering. The Jan 6th trials were the first time it was applied to protests, and that use is so novel that the Supreme Court has agreed to review it.[1] And the "corruptly" term was effectively eliminated by UNITED STATES v. ROBERTSON (2023)[2], when the appeals court ruled that it means simply “acting ‘with consciousness of wrongdoing.’” (mens rea) and with “independently unlawful means or purpose”. Almost all disruptive protests involve some minor "independently unlawful means" (such as jaywalking, trespassing, disorderly conduct, or failure to comply with a police officer), so they fit that definition. The court's example to illustrate the meaning of the term was: "a witness in a court proceeding may refuse to testify by invoking his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, thereby obstructing or impeding the proceeding, but he does not act corruptly". The court actually said that taking the fifth is obstructing an official proceeding (but not corruptly). Imagine how little it takes to commit a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison now. Have you seen the movie "The Trial of the Chicago 7"? If that happened today, not only could they be convicted of "corruptly" disrupting an official proceeding for the protests, they could be convicted for their behavior during the trial. (In the latter case, the independently unlawful means would be behavior that was in contempt of court) 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_v._United_States 2: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dc-circuit/115332314.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dc-circuit/115332314.ht... PS: I should add that the 20 years comes from a different law with the same phrasing, 18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant, section (c)(2). The existence of two laws with the same phrasing, both for specific crimes (evidence tampering and witness tampering), makes it clear that the legislature didn't intend for these laws to apply broadly. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512#c_2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512#c_2

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]