Matt Taibbi

Rank 34 of 47
|
Score -42
10/3/2024, 5:55:22 PM
X
In reply to:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
283d
2. It was however used as a non-binding argument by Oliver Wendell Holmes in one of the Supreme Court’s most notorious speech rulings, Schenck v. United States;
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
283d
Ok, for the last time:

1. “‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater” never law and never a “Supreme Court test,” as Tim Walz claimed;

The statement engages in a discussion about a historical Supreme Court ruling and its implications on free speech, which is a matter of public concern. The tone is analytical, aiming to clarify misconceptions about legal precedents related to free speech.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not use harmful language and focuses on historical legal analysis, adhering to the principle of doing no harm. [+1]
  2. 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 engages in a factual correction and dialogue without personal attacks, aligning with constructive criticism and dialogue. [+1]
  3. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement addresses a public issue related to free speech, using the platform to clarify legal misconceptions, which aligns with responsible use of free speech. [+2]