The former Infowars correspondent, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy, “served as an instigator and leader" during the Capitol attack, federal prosecutors said.

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.

        • jivemasta@reddthat.com
          16·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
              12·
              1 year ago

              Either is threatening, without an action.

              Yes, it is.

              What Is a Criminal Threat?

              A criminal threat involves one person threatening someone else with physical harm or death. To be convicted, the prosecution must prove:

              • the defendant communicated a threat of harm to another
              • the defendant intended that the communication be taken as a threat, and
              • the threat was credible and specific so as to place a person in fear of harm.

              Edited for formatting and to remove needless snark.

            • Furbag@lemmy.world
              7·
              1 year ago

              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.

    • chaogomu@kbin.social
      61·
      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]

    • qprimed@lemmy.mlEnglish
      4·
      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.

        • qprimed@lemmy.mlEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          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