1/ This is infuriatingly terrible journalism. First of all, this passage is at absolute best incomprehensible nonsense, and at worst is just wrong on the law. Stop using the "fire in a crowded theater" language because it 1000% of the time makes you look stupid. 
https://twitter.com/PeterSuciu/status/1383916765625737216
2/ Quoting a "futurist and brand strategist" (@AKeynoteSpeaker lolol) as an expert on First Amendment law is a masterclass in barrel scraping. There are plenty of people who actually know what they're talking about that you could have asked. Why would you choose some rando?
3/ The incitement standard is clear: speech directed to inciting, and likely to incite, imminent lawless action.
Calling for action in the event of a verdict that hasn't been issued *clearly* does not constitute proscribable incitement. A competent lawyer could tell you this.
Calling for action in the event of a verdict that hasn't been issued *clearly* does not constitute proscribable incitement. A competent lawyer could tell you this.
4/ You quoted convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza. Yikes bro.
Maybe try actually asking subject matter experts so you can have a non-stupid opinion to quote in your article.
Maybe try actually asking subject matter experts so you can have a non-stupid opinion to quote in your article.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
