[DangitBobby]

I recommend reading the whole thing to find the relevant bits. The judge says he is sentencing based on thought crime.

> U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor said he intended to “send a message to anyone who shares a similar ideology.”

> The following can be attributed to Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern:

    “If prosecutors are correct that Sanchez moved zines because he feared they’d try to use them against his wife, that’s a commentary on prosecutors’ lawlessness, not Sanchez’s. Under the First Amendment, possessing literature cannot be criminal, so what legitimate evidence could he possibly have been concealing? Political zines like those Sanchez possessed are no different from the pro-Revolution pamphlets this country’s founders had in mind when they drafted the First Amendment’s press clause.

    “Sanchez’s case is the latest example of the Trump administration grasping at any legal straws it can to criminalize disfavored ideologies and writings, from conflating dissent with terrorism to deporting immigrants who report on protests or criticize wars the U.S. bankrolls. Americans should not make the mistake of believing Sanchez’s sentence only threatens immigrants, leftists, or so-called Antifa members — they’re just the low-hanging fruit, not the end game.”

[like_any_other]

> The judge says he is sentencing based on thought crime.

> Under the First Amendment, possessing literature cannot be criminal

The existence of hate crime laws in the US says otherwise - political motivation to a crime has long been a component in sentencing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_...