Matt Taibbi

Rank 31 of 47

Score -20

“Clear and present danger” was one of the most infamous standards the court created. Do you teach your kids about “separate but equal” and “for the protection and health of the state” also?

I understand what you’re saying but there’s a good reason this argument is infamous.

Lucy Whatoff

@maw_rad

25d

@mtaibbi Colloquially People equate
"Fire! in crowded theater” with “Clear & present danger"

So when I tell my child not to do that
Really saying that you need to think about the consequences of your actions
Which could be, in some cases, illegal
Hopefully you tell your kids the same

10/3/2024, 6:22:26 PM

The statement critiques historical legal standards and their implications, engaging in a discussion about free speech and legal interpretations. It questions the teaching of outdated or infamous legal doctrines, suggesting a need for critical understanding of their historical context and impact.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement aims to clarify misconceptions about legal standards, which aligns with the principle of doing no harm by promoting accurate understanding. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
By encouraging critical thinking about historical legal standards, the statement promotes understanding and empathy for those affected by such rulings. [+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 engages in constructive criticism of past legal standards without resorting to personal attacks, focusing on the ideas rather than individuals. [+1]