4 ms·

It's pretty straightforward that if someone tells you to hide something because they've been arrested and they think it ties them to some criminal act, and then

by arjie 4mo ago

It's pretty straightforward that if someone tells you to hide something because they've been arrested and they think it ties them to some criminal act, and then you hide it, you're an accessory to the crime. 30 years for that seems harsh though I anticipate they will be pardoned by the next Democratic Party President. Describing such an act without the obvious context is a pretty good way to point out that it's partisan text and likely misrepresents other things. Listen, we've all been on the Internet a few decades. This kind of understatement of things is not new to any of us. "Oh so just because your country thinks it's not a big deal for someone to go to America to fly a plane means it should get bombed?" No, champ, it's the flying of the plane into the WTC and subsequent sheltering of the guy who planned it that does that.

jrflowers 4mo ago
> No, champ, it's the flying of the plane into the WTC Sir, a second zine has struck the south tower
lovich 4mo ago
Was the speech illegal? Not giving my email to this site so I can’t read the rest but it seems odd that any sort of speech gets multi year sentences much less multi decade unless it was direct calls to violence.
- ndriscoll 4mo ago
  I don't think there's even a claim the speech is illegal. Rather, it's that "transporting zines" when your spouse gets arrested on suspicion of crimes related to a designated terrorist organization is about as legal as "arts and crafts" (i.e. shredding documents) when your spouse is arrested for fraud. It's the obstruction of justice part that's illegal, not the possession. As far as I know she could be fully acquitted and he'd still be on the hook for trying to conceal evidence.
  - lovich 4mo ago
    that's a plausible and convincing argument to me other than that its 30 years. Murderers can get less than that. I don't see how that's anything other than trying to chill the idea these people had based on the connection to speech. I am also not a proponent of absolutist free speech if you check my comment history, but I cannot imagine a realm where the details linked in the small part of the article that's not walled off and the details in this thread don't align to the government trying to prevent bad thought. I am open to more detail if anyone has some to provide
  - cbarnes99 4mo ago
    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.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
    - MSFT_Edging 4mo ago
      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.
      - account42 4mo ago
        As opposed to real terrorist organizations where they can just phone up terrorist HR to confirm if someone is a member?
    - 15155 4mo ago
      > the average sentence for murder in the US is 15 years Perhaps in the state system: in the federal system this is absolutely not the case (it's 5+ years longer), and there is no parole.
    - xdennis 4mo ago
      > And it is not actually a "designated terrorist organization". It is.[1] Perhaps you mean it's not a statutory Foreign Terrorist Organization, like Al-Qaida or Hamas. That is a harsher designation, but that's not possible for Antifa because it's not foreign. [1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/designating-antifa-as-a-domestic-terrorist-organization/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/desi...
  - flossposse 4mo ago
    But were the zines evidence of a crime? I haven't been able to find any indication in the public records that they were. If on Saturday my brother gets arrested and on Monday before school I stop by his house to pick up the textbooks I left there, I'm not obstructing an investigation.
fakedang 4mo ago
If it costs 30 years for transporting zines, how much is treason and conspiracy to overthrow the government worth?
- a96 4mo ago
  "Priceless"
- copper-float 4mo ago
  [flagged]
fn-mote 4mo ago
30 years for an accessory charge? For someone who did not attend the event? Sounds excessive.
- will4274 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ndsipa_pomu 4mo ago
    Is there actual evidence of "intent of mass murder"? It seems speculative at best.
    - will4274 4mo ago
      Enough to convince a jury of their peers.
      - cool_dude85 4mo ago
        Question begging, basically. The contention is that they were railroaded and maliciously overprosecuted, it's hard for the answer to be "enough to convince a jury of their peers."
        mathisfun123 4mo ago
        99% of people on this forum (and elsewhere) understand neither the phrase "begging the question" nor the logical fallacy (petitio principii). And thus people are imprisoned. It's sad but this is where we are (and probably always have been).
      - ndsipa_pomu 4mo ago
        Maybe, but what was that evidence? The U.S. administration seems to not require evidence for lots of statements and especially regarding ICE (c.f. statements made about Renee Good after she was murdered).
    - 4mo ago
aqme28 4mo ago
> 30 years for that seems harsh though I anticipate they will be pardoned by the next Democratic Party President. I really doubt it.
- TrackerFF 4mo ago
  The writing on the wall is pretty clear now: Undoing Trump-policies and Trump-legacy should be priority for any potential presidential dem candidate, no mater how center or left leaning. I don't think we'll get a Ocasio-Cortez type front runner, but I don't think you can be a total milquetoast "water under the bridge" candidate to win either. If there is one thing the Trump 47 presidency has shown, it is that traditional decorum will not get you anywhere. It is the reason the Trump investigation didn't end up with anything - Biden and the DOJ were too fixated on decorum, and doing things as impartially as possible. The Prairieland case is a direct product of Trump. They are terrorists because Trump has designated them as terrorists.
  - cmrdporcupine 4mo ago
    Absolutely no way. The Democratic party is currently having a public freak out about 3 DSA members winning in NY primaries and about the mayor of NY. They voted en-masse last year to join with the Republicans in congress to symbolically "denounce socialism" in all its forms. a) That party would rather lose to Trump than let even moderate social democrats have strong influence b) There is no way they're going to bat for left wing agitators in jail. > I don't think you can be a total milquetoast "water under the bridge" candidate to win either. Yep, and that's why they won't win. They're going to go out of their way to frame themselves as super moderate reasonable totally not the "radical left democrats" and run someone semi-Republican trying to appeal to the non-existent center. And piss off anybody "left wing" (or even just sympathetic to Gaza) under the age of 40, which is increasingly a large part of the American populace. Red-baiting and using the power of the police and law against far left organizations is the bread and butter of the security apparatus in every western country since at least 1917. It's only been temporarily distracted by Islamic radicalism and left wingers have been remarkably disorganized and weak since the fall of the USSR.
jmyeet 4mo ago
I would love to see a detailed comparison of everyone who comments on this issue vs their comments on the age verification issue. For the latter, people bend over backwards to make it a free speech issue yet so many bend over backwards on this issue to argue this 30 year sentence was good actually because they were an accessory to domestic terrorism. My hypothesis is that these two groups are mostly the same people. Tad Stoermer, lecturer on American history and author of A Resistance History of the United States summed this up [1]. The person in question here wasn't even at the event. They moved a box of publications and from all this the Federal government created an domestic terrorist organization out of whole cloth (ie Antifa). What people seem to refuse to accept is that "terrorist" is a political designation, nothing more. It's basically saying "we don't like this person or organization". Were the standards of today around in the 1960s, every civil rights organization would've been labelled domestic terrorists. The comparisons to January 6 are apt because that was an attempted coup in which people died. The harshest sentences were Enrique Tarrio (ringleader, 22 years), Stewart Rhodes (seditious conspiracy, 18 years) and Ethan Nordean (seditious conspiracy, 18 years). All pardoned by the way. Yet the people who want to defend 30 years for moving a box of zines by someone who wasn't at the event is astounding. [1]: https://www.tiktok.com/@tadstoermer/video/7655174731066363166 https://www.tiktok.com/@tadstoermer/video/765517473106636316...
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]

by arjie 4mo ago

jrflowers 4mo ago

> No, champ, it's the flying of the plane into the WTC Sir, a second zine has struck the south tower

lovich 4mo ago

Was the speech illegal? Not giving my email to this site so I can’t read the rest but it seems odd that any sort of speech gets multi year sentences much less multi decade unless it was direct calls to violence.

ndriscoll 4mo ago
I don't think there's even a claim the speech is illegal. Rather, it's that "transporting zines" when your spouse gets arrested on suspicion of crimes related to a designated terrorist organization is about as legal as "arts and crafts" (i.e. shredding documents) when your spouse is arrested for fraud. It's the obstruction of justice part that's illegal, not the possession. As far as I know she could be fully acquitted and he'd still be on the hook for trying to conceal evidence.
- lovich 4mo ago
  that's a plausible and convincing argument to me other than that its 30 years. Murderers can get less than that. I don't see how that's anything other than trying to chill the idea these people had based on the connection to speech. I am also not a proponent of absolutist free speech if you check my comment history, but I cannot imagine a realm where the details linked in the small part of the article that's not walled off and the details in this thread don't align to the government trying to prevent bad thought. I am open to more detail if anyone has some to provide
- cbarnes99 4mo ago
  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.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - MSFT_Edging 4mo ago
    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.
    - account42 4mo ago
      As opposed to real terrorist organizations where they can just phone up terrorist HR to confirm if someone is a member?
  - 15155 4mo ago
    > the average sentence for murder in the US is 15 years Perhaps in the state system: in the federal system this is absolutely not the case (it's 5+ years longer), and there is no parole.
  - xdennis 4mo ago
    > And it is not actually a "designated terrorist organization". It is.[1] Perhaps you mean it's not a statutory Foreign Terrorist Organization, like Al-Qaida or Hamas. That is a harsher designation, but that's not possible for Antifa because it's not foreign. [1]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/designating-antifa-as-a-domestic-terrorist-organization/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/desi...
- flossposse 4mo ago
  But were the zines evidence of a crime? I haven't been able to find any indication in the public records that they were. If on Saturday my brother gets arrested and on Monday before school I stop by his house to pick up the textbooks I left there, I'm not obstructing an investigation.

fakedang 4mo ago

If it costs 30 years for transporting zines, how much is treason and conspiracy to overthrow the government worth?

a96 4mo ago
"Priceless"
copper-float 4mo ago
[flagged]

fn-mote 4mo ago

30 years for an accessory charge? For someone who did not attend the event? Sounds excessive.

will4274 4mo ago
[flagged]
- ndsipa_pomu 4mo ago
  Is there actual evidence of "intent of mass murder"? It seems speculative at best.
  - will4274 4mo ago
    Enough to convince a jury of their peers.
    - cool_dude85 4mo ago
      Question begging, basically. The contention is that they were railroaded and maliciously overprosecuted, it's hard for the answer to be "enough to convince a jury of their peers."
      - mathisfun123 4mo ago
        99% of people on this forum (and elsewhere) understand neither the phrase "begging the question" nor the logical fallacy (petitio principii). And thus people are imprisoned. It's sad but this is where we are (and probably always have been).
    - ndsipa_pomu 4mo ago
      Maybe, but what was that evidence? The U.S. administration seems to not require evidence for lots of statements and especially regarding ICE (c.f. statements made about Renee Good after she was murdered).
  - 4mo ago

aqme28 4mo ago

> 30 years for that seems harsh though I anticipate they will be pardoned by the next Democratic Party President. I really doubt it.

TrackerFF 4mo ago
The writing on the wall is pretty clear now: Undoing Trump-policies and Trump-legacy should be priority for any potential presidential dem candidate, no mater how center or left leaning. I don't think we'll get a Ocasio-Cortez type front runner, but I don't think you can be a total milquetoast "water under the bridge" candidate to win either. If there is one thing the Trump 47 presidency has shown, it is that traditional decorum will not get you anywhere. It is the reason the Trump investigation didn't end up with anything - Biden and the DOJ were too fixated on decorum, and doing things as impartially as possible. The Prairieland case is a direct product of Trump. They are terrorists because Trump has designated them as terrorists.
- cmrdporcupine 4mo ago
  Absolutely no way. The Democratic party is currently having a public freak out about 3 DSA members winning in NY primaries and about the mayor of NY. They voted en-masse last year to join with the Republicans in congress to symbolically "denounce socialism" in all its forms. a) That party would rather lose to Trump than let even moderate social democrats have strong influence b) There is no way they're going to bat for left wing agitators in jail. > I don't think you can be a total milquetoast "water under the bridge" candidate to win either. Yep, and that's why they won't win. They're going to go out of their way to frame themselves as super moderate reasonable totally not the "radical left democrats" and run someone semi-Republican trying to appeal to the non-existent center. And piss off anybody "left wing" (or even just sympathetic to Gaza) under the age of 40, which is increasingly a large part of the American populace. Red-baiting and using the power of the police and law against far left organizations is the bread and butter of the security apparatus in every western country since at least 1917. It's only been temporarily distracted by Islamic radicalism and left wingers have been remarkably disorganized and weak since the fall of the USSR.

jmyeet 4mo ago

I would love to see a detailed comparison of everyone who comments on this issue vs their comments on the age verification issue. For the latter, people bend over backwards to make it a free speech issue yet so many bend over backwards on this issue to argue this 30 year sentence was good actually because they were an accessory to domestic terrorism. My hypothesis is that these two groups are mostly the same people. Tad Stoermer, lecturer on American history and author of A Resistance History of the United States summed this up [1]. The person in question here wasn't even at the event. They moved a box of publications and from all this the Federal government created an domestic terrorist organization out of whole cloth (ie Antifa). What people seem to refuse to accept is that "terrorist" is a political designation, nothing more. It's basically saying "we don't like this person or organization". Were the standards of today around in the 1960s, every civil rights organization would've been labelled domestic terrorists. The comparisons to January 6 are apt because that was an attempted coup in which people died. The harshest sentences were Enrique Tarrio (ringleader, 22 years), Stewart Rhodes (seditious conspiracy, 18 years) and Ethan Nordean (seditious conspiracy, 18 years). All pardoned by the way. Yet the people who want to defend 30 years for moving a box of zines by someone who wasn't at the event is astounding. [1]: https://www.tiktok.com/@tadstoermer/video/7655174731066363166 https://www.tiktok.com/@tadstoermer/video/765517473106636316...

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]