politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
— Biggs’ lawyer, Norm Pattis
got it! gonna find the nearest crowded movie theatre and yell "FIRE!" at the top of my lungs. thanks, norm!
In general, a conspiracy charge can't be sustained on speech alone; even speech wherein two or more people agree to commit a crime. It additionally requires some overt material act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
If Alice, Bob, and Carla get together and make a plan to break Dan's window and steal his fancy new TV, that's just talk. But if Alice then goes to the hardware store and buys a window-smashing hammer, now all three can be convicted for conspiracy to commit burglary.
In this case, Biggs' overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy included actually breaking down fences to get at Congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_conspiracy
indeed. this is why the speech itself must be considered as part of the conspiracy. the comment by his lawyer seems to take the entire act and reframe it around the speech, when its clear the speech and the act are, essentially, one in this case.
edit: errant full stop
Yeah, the latest conservative tactic for pardoning criminality seems to be generalizing the acts into meaninglessness then pretending that generalized act is what's being prosecuted. This case very clearly fits the definition of a criminal conspiracy but they're trying to convince the base that the DoJ is ready to prosecute all conservatives for wrongthink.
So is conspiring to overthrow the govt, so…..
He didn't threaten to do it, he did it
Conspiracy, by definition, is talking about commiting a crime, and then doing an action to actually commit the crime.
So let's say I get some friends together and we talk about pulling a heist on the local art museum. That in and of itself is not a crime, we are just talking. But if we start going out and casing the joint, buying crow bars and shit to actually do it, it becomes a conspiracy to commit burglary, which is a crime. Even though we didn't actually break into the place yet, it becomes a crime when we make actions toward the crime.
Dude made statements about overthrowing the government. Not a crime. But then he went to the government and started jumping fences, and breaking into buildings. Crime.
Also, by your logic yelling fire wouldn't be illegal, it's literally speech. Also threatening is a crime. If I say, I'm gonna hit you with this hammer, and I have a hammer in my hand, that is assault, which is totally a crime. Didn't actually hit you, just threatened to but with the clear ability to go through with that threat.
Yes, it is.
Edited for formatting and to remove needless snark.
Good Lord you are dense. People have already clearly explained why it is in fact a crime, complete with ELI5 examples.
If you don't get it, that's on you. The dude is going to prison where he belongs.
You seem like somebody who is destined to end up just like this guy with wild ideas like "threatening without an action isn't a crime", so keep at it.
That's not true at all. It is illegal in many places to make threats or intimidate people. See here: https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Criminal-Threats.htm
It actually isn't.
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
Speech alone isn't, this guy did more than speak.
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.
your point is well taken - speech must be protected.
but my illustration is indended to be as outlandish as I believe the lawyer's statement was. once there is an overt act, the speech is no longer separate and protected. his statement appears to try and separate the two. separating speech from the resulting act (and therefore consequences) seems to be the current playbook and it infuriates me.
I hope we are not talking past each others here as I believe I understand your point, but my comment was to illustrate the silliness of the statement by Biggs's lawyer.
edit: context