Matt Taibbi

Rank 34 of 47
|
Score -42
10/3/2024, 5:55:23 PM
X
In reply to:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
284d
4. The court ended up ruling against the antiwar socialist Schenck, upholding his jail sentence for passing out what today would be clearly protected political opinion;
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
284d
3. Holmes compared distribution of a peaceful, non-inciting antiwar leaflet to “Shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater”;
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
284d
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
·
284d
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 critiques the misuse of a legal metaphor in public discourse, specifically addressing the historical context and implications of the 'Fire in a crowded theater' analogy in relation to free speech and political opinion. It aims to correct a misconception and highlight the potential misuse of legal arguments to suppress political expression.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not use harmful language and aims to clarify a misconception, aligning with 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 constructive criticism by addressing a specific argument and providing historical context, without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]
  3. Principle 5:
    I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
    The statement acknowledges a mistake in the public understanding of a legal metaphor and seeks to correct it. [+1]
  4. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds free speech by clarifying a common misconception about a legal metaphor and its implications for political expression. [+1]