| This article is quite dishonest. > Let’s be clear: a few of the protesters were out of bounds. "out of bounds" is a nice way of putting it. Terrorism is an accurate description. > But these sentences far outstrip anything that’s been given to anyone on the right wing: the leader of the Proud Boys, as this article notes, was sentenced to 22 years in prison. I think the difference here is the planned terrorist activity, and condolence of violence. If the Proud Boys were doing to same sort of thing, then fair - but I cannot find in a Google search that they did. > One protester wasn’t even present, but was sentenced to 30 years for moving some zines > The ninth defendant, Daniel Sanchez-Estrada was not at the protest, but was convicted of corruptly concealing a document or record after prosecutors said he moved leftwing zines and other materials at the request of Rueda, his wife, after she was arrested. Clearly it was not just "moving some vines", it was knowingly concealing evidence and attempting to prevent the course of justice. > Instead, other “evidence” was used to infer that they planned violence, including this specific argument that should give everyone pause An argument can be made there, all are innocent unless proven guilty. But I suspect they admitted to being fully aware and supportive of the terrorist activities. The prosecution can claim all they like, the important thing is what ends up being considered. |
This I agree with.
> it was knowingly concealing evidence
The article does not misrepresent this. The issue being raised is about how they were tried/convicted/sentenced. The part you quoted shows this.
> Terrorism is an accurate description.
> ... the difference here is the planned terrorist activity, ... If the Proud Boys were doing [the] same sort of thing ...
I'm genuinely interested in what "terrorism" means to you.