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.

  • qprimed@lemmy.mlEnglish
    34·
    11 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
      32·
      11 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

      • qprimed@lemmy.mlEnglish
        6·
        11 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.

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          2·
          11 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.

      • qprimed@lemmy.mlEnglish
        4·
        11 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.

        • grimace1153@lemm.ee
          28·
          11 months 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.

          • qprimed@lemmy.mlEnglish
            1·
            11 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

      • chaogomu@kbin.social
        41·
        11 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
          2·
          11 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

    • Hogger85b@kbin.social
      1612·
      11 months ago

      He will get out on feb 2025 when president trump pardons all of them.

      And I say that as someone that will.vote democrat, I just recognise reality

      • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
        19·
        11 months ago

        Trump won’t pardon them. He hates his base more than we do. He only pardons people who are on a level allows them to help Trump personally.

        Also, I’m pretty damned cynical, but I still think there is less than a 50% chance trump wins. Unfortunately 49% is very uncomfortable.

        • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
          3·
          11 months ago

          They tried to help him, the problem is they failed. Trump doesn’t like losers who can’t even pull off a coup.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            1·
            11 months ago

            He failed. If he actually wanted a successful coup he should have organised his merry band of idiots. But since everyone involved is completely feckless, Trump included, that was never going to happen.

        • stevieb@kbin.social
          2·
          11 months ago

          I believe he’d absolutely pardon them. Not because he cares about them, but because it would “legitimize” his claim that the election was stolen. Or just because it would be a distraction for people to talk about while he does whatever he wants.

        • Hogger85b@kbin.social
          1·
          11 months ago

          It would be useful for him to pardon them so he has a new army and people are more willing to fight for him in 2029

      • Adderbox76@lemmy.caEnglish
        2·
        11 months ago

        If New Hampshire decides he’s ineligible for the primary because of his past bullshit, it’ll absolutely start a domino effect of other states doing the same.

        I’m not american, so I’m not sure, but doesn’t that mean if he literally can’t be the republican candidate if too many states say no?

        I mean, yeah, he can run independent I suppose, but Trump’s ego isn’t just about being president. He gets off on having the GOP under his thumb. Once that goes away, even if he “wins” as an independent, would he even be able to accomplish anything?

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          1·
          11 months ago

          He’ll take that to the corrupt supreme Court where all of those constitutional originalists will have a sudden change of heart just like they do when the Bible they love so much says something they don’t care for.

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        1·
        11 months ago

        The only thing that makes me think he might not is that he could’ve preemptively pardoned everyone involved in this in the dead time between the certification and Brandon taking office and he didn’t. Idk why he didn’t, it would have cost him nothing and made people much more likely to commit overt acts of terrorism for him a second time, but he didn’t.

  • ElleChaise@kbin.social
    221·
    11 months ago

    Just a friendly reminder to any shit-birds reading; this is the nicest version of what we will do to traitors. You will not overthrow the government, you will not reinstate a four time impeached Yankee carpet bagger as president, you will not pass go, nor will you collect $200. You will simply rot in prison, again: at best.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      1·
      11 months ago

      Not in their minds. In their minds they “did it” and “stood up to a tyrannical government” and “tried to stop the Dems from stealing” they just got stopped by the deep state once again cuz it is afraid of how awesome trump is.

      These people don’t live in reality. They’ve built a whole alternate one where trump is a billionaire and Russia helping him get elected was a hoax and the corrupt Ukraine phone call is a hoax and trump has a 6 pack of abs.
      They literally built a Golden idol of him. They went to the grassy knoll to wait for JFK to come back from the dead. They try to deposit trump bucks in atms. But they also build your house, drive on your roads, send their kids to your schools and vote in your elections.

      They are ignorant, and stupid, yes. But the only way to fix that is education and they hate that too.

    • athos77@kbin.social
      4·
      11 months ago

      He claims that, “I’m not a terrorist, I don’t have hate in my heart.” It’s funny how all of them are just so magically reformed once they’re facing actual prison time.

  • Bramble Dog@infosec.pub
    141·
    11 months ago

    Just a reminder: on the day tweets were claiming the gallow was brought into DC by one of the vehicles in Alex Jones’ motorcade.

    We need to be clear here: Mike Pence was going to be assassinated on January 6th.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    5·
    11 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:

    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.

    The government sought 33 years for Biggs, an Army veteran who sustained a head injury in Iraq and then served as a correspondent for the conspiracy website Infowars.

    Prosecutors argued that he was a “vocal leader and influential proponent of the group’s shift toward political violence” and used his “outsized public profile” and his military experience as he “led a revolt against the government in an effort to stop the peaceful transfer of power.”

    He ruled earlier in Thursday’s hearing that Biggs’ tearing down of a fence that stood between police and rioters qualified him for a terrorism sentencing enhancement sought by prosecutors.

    The other Proud Boys will also be sentenced in the coming days: Rehl on Thursday afternoon, Pezzola and Nordean on Friday and Tarrio on Tuesday.

    The actions of the Proud Boys on Jan. 6 were “quintessential pollical behavior” up until the riot turned violent, Pattis said, arguing that prosecutors had used his client’s political speech as evidence of criminal intent.

    The original article contains 787 words, the summary contains 192 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • doublejay1999@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      11 months ago

      Thanks Bot, but in this particular case I’m going to savour every word of the full article. No hard feelings.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    11 months ago

    Let’s get all the Pink Boys and Oath Breakers into prison. And same for those that planned the coup and goaded them into this.

    Also, I want to get Flynn and his brother and Wray under the microscope, too. What did they know, when did they know it and who were they talking to?