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.

  • qprimedEnglish
    49·
    10 months 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!

    • fubo@lemmy.world
      41·
      10 months ago

      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

      • qprimedEnglish
        10·
        10 months ago

        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

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          3·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • jivemasta@reddthat.com
            17·
            10 months 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·
                10 months 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·
                10 months 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·
        10 months 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
          3·
          10 months 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

      • qprimedEnglish
        5·
        10 months 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.

          • qprimedEnglish
            1·
            10 months 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