Joe Biggs, a Proud Boys leader convicted of seditious conspiracy who the government says “served as an instigator and leader” during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, was sentenced to 17 years in federal prison on Thursday.

It is among the longest sentences in Capitol riot cases. The record is the 18-year sentence given to Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, also convicted of seditious conspiracy, after prosecutors sought 25 years in federal prison in his case.

  • qprimed@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    “We have to be careful to count speech for what it is and not what it might do”

    — Biggs’ lawyer, Norm Pattis

    got it! gonna find the nearest crowded movie theatre and yell “FIRE!” at the top of my lungs. thanks, norm!

    • grimace1153@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      got it! gonna find the nearest crowded movie theatre and yell “FIRE!” at the top of my lungs. thanks, norm!

      It’s not the same thing and you know it. Yelling fire is actually illegal.

      • qprimed@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        so is a conspiracy, incitement, etc… we are talking about the freedom of speech vs freedom of concequence from that speech. that is what I take issue with. inciting panic in closed confines has immediate consequences - this is clear and therefore typically prohibited.

        political speech fomenting real-world violence (or panic) should result in the same level of legal consequence when action is taken based on that speech. imho, you can not separate the speech from the act once the act has taken place.

        • grimace1153@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes but my original response is condemning the speech. I fully agree that speech and an action added to it can be criminal. But speech alone cannot be.

          I am merely stating above that saying something, no matter what anyone thinks about it, is not the same as yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre.

      • chaogomu@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        It actually isn’t.

        “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” is a popular analogy for speech or actions whose principal purpose is to create panic, and in particular for speech or actions which may for that reason be thought to be outside the scope of free speech protections. The phrase is a paraphrasing of a dictum, or non-binding statement, from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant’s speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).[1]

        The paraphrasing differs from Holmes’s original wording in that it typically does not include the word falsely, while also adding the word “crowded” to describe the theatre.[2]

        • Daisyifyoudo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not as cut and dry as that-

          “The falsely shouted warning, while technically speech, could potentially violate a state’s criminal laws against disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct, whether or not it provokes a stampede, for instance."

          -Nashwa Gewaily, a media and First Amendment lawyer

        • grimace1153@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I stand corrected, today I learned, but my point still stands. Speech is not illegal.

    • odelik@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can we retire this phrase already?

      It’s almost as bad as “first” from the days of message boards.

      • neptune@dmv.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        It sort of started out for contexts like the drunken bean pole baiting the bouncer. I think the current more political/court system is an OK variation. It might be getting older but it’s still useful, funny, poignant