> tampering with evidence in a terrorist-related crime that involved an officer shooting.
Talk about an "emotional-based framing" meant to "radicalize the less-literate" ! For starters, terrorists attack civilians rather than de facto militaries. These are like the opposite of terrorists, however misguided we might think they are.
Regardless of framing, the core argument here is that the contents of political publications (ie protected speech) are not appropriately evidence in a criminal proceeding, therefore attempting to hide them is not tampering with evidence. Anybody who believes in the first amendment to the US Constitution should be receptive to this argument.
Again, I don't understand who you guys are trying to convince here? You're justifying the shooting of a policeman by a group being charged as a terrorist organization. Who on Hacker News is going to agree with you, except those on the extreme-left fring of politics?
Hacker News is a rational fact-based website. There are lots of other populist websites where people react more emotionally to things. Surely you'd have more success posting this on Reddit or TikTok?
Such charges are outright nonsense, for one thing. And I think that's relevant since it's the only possible jutification for the utter forfeiture of rights.
That's a valid complaint, and I'd understand if that was the thrust of the conversation. But the story is that someone was jailed for "moving zines", which is obvious nonsense. You can argue your other points while still being honest about the facts of the case. Otherwise you look like a populist trying to appeal to emotionally-vulnerable people.
You started off bemoaning "emotional-based framing" and "populism", but now you don't want to accept that a word has a specific meaning beyond its popular emotional usage? Perhaps try being consistent.
Talk about an "emotional-based framing" meant to "radicalize the less-literate" ! For starters, terrorists attack civilians rather than de facto militaries. These are like the opposite of terrorists, however misguided we might think they are.
Regardless of framing, the core argument here is that the contents of political publications (ie protected speech) are not appropriately evidence in a criminal proceeding, therefore attempting to hide them is not tampering with evidence. Anybody who believes in the first amendment to the US Constitution should be receptive to this argument.