Matt Taibbi

Rank 30 of 47

Score -5

Argh. No… Walz and everyone else is quoting from Schenck v United States, and “‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” was never a “Supreme Court test” but an offhand comment by Oliver Wendell Holmes that was never law.

Angus Maitland

@angusmaitland

27d

@mtaibbi @walterkirn The standard established in Brandenburg v. Ohio was that speech can be restricted if it is intended to incite immediate illegal activity or likely to result in it. Deliberately causing a dangerous situation, like a stampede, could meet that test.

Stop politicizing this.

10/3/2024, 12:49:50 PM

The statement critiques the misuse of a legal metaphor regarding free speech, engaging in a discussion about First Amendment interpretations. It aims to correct a common misconception and references legal standards from Brandenburg v. Ohio.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement aims to clarify a legal misunderstanding, which aligns with the principle of doing no harm by promoting accurate information. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
By correcting a misconception, the statement promotes understanding and knowledge about free speech laws. [+1]
Principle 4:
I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
The statement uses a critical tone towards public figures, which could be seen as a personal attack, but it primarily focuses on the issue rather than individuals. [-1]