Matt Taibbi

Rank 34 of 47

Score -42

For the ten billionth time, “‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” was never law. “Clear and present danger” was the standard created in that case, and Brandenburg put the final nail in its coffin.

treyburkescleanblock

@StephenSBrown28

282d

@mtaibbi Overturned?

Brandenburg: “Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation EXCEPT where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

10/3/2024, 5:33:59 PM

The statement engages in a discussion about the legal interpretation of free speech, specifically addressing misconceptions about the 'Fire in a crowded theater' analogy. It aims to clarify historical legal standards and their evolution, contributing to public understanding of First Amendment rights.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement aims to correct a common misconception, 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 clarifying legal standards, the statement promotes understanding and knowledge about free speech rights. [+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 critiques a public figure's understanding of the First Amendment, which could be seen as constructive criticism, though the tone could be perceived as dismissive.