You combat bad speech with better speech, not criminal sanctions. Threatening to jail people for political speech is as dangerous to our democracy as questioning election results. https://t.co/AdphOvUhod
Drew Stokesbary
@stokesbary · WA · H
Voice fingerprint
Percentage-point difference between this legislator’s topic share and the party median. Bars left are under-indexed; bars right are over-indexed.
Most distinctive Civil Rights 8.6 pp above the party median
- Topics
- 1
- Over
- 1
- Under
- 0
Voice fingerprint. 1 topics shown on a symmetric scale from −8.6 pp to +8.6 pp. Most distinctive topic: Civil Rights, 8.6 pp above the party median.
- Civil Rights Over-indexed +8.6 pp
Bars share a symmetric scale of ±8.6 pp.
View complete comparison table
| Topic | Legislator share | Party median | Difference | Direction | Posts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Civil Rights | 12.8% | 4.1% | +8.6 pp | Over-indexed | 123 |
Drew Stokesbary's interaction network
Explore parsed retweets and mentions linked to known legislators and external handles. Filter by direction, topic, target party, target state, or interaction type.
Post explorer
Switch between this legislator's most-engaged posts, newest posts, and representative samples.
- 10 matching posts
Encouraging vaccination against a virus that killed 600,000 Americans is the *opposite* of Nazi persecution of Jews. Equating them trivializes the Shoah, devalues the lives and memories of 6 million people systematically slaughtered, and brings unnecessary pain to their families. https://t.co/Yn3wYCEtr0
RT @richsssmith: The GOP got most of what it wanted in WA<U+2019>s drug bill in exchange for basically nothing. No short-term political benefit,<U+2026>
@dospueblos @RachelAPOly @GovInslee The *actual* legal standard is speech "inciting or producing imminent lawless action and...likely to incite or produce such action" (Brandenburg v. Ohio) or "inherently likely to provoke violent reaction" (Cohen v. California). The keyword: "LIKELY to provoke," not "CAN provoke."
@only_champs Say you don't understand First Amendment law without saying you don't understand First Amendment law. That example, "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech," appeared in one of the worst Free Speech cases ever decided, U.S. v. Schenck. 1/
As if our struggles even compare. We complain about wearing a mask for a month while Afghan women must now cover their entire body as long as the Taliban remain in control. We complain about school curriculum while Afghan girls will never step foot in a classroom again.
@loowit The Supreme Court has been articulating where these lines are for 100+ years. In this context, the Governor claimed the "incitement" doctrine would apply. But he's wrong<U+2014>here's where the Supreme Court says the line is: https://t.co/Tukuu3BBoM
@only_champs Thankfully, Schenk was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. The Court examined some *truly* odious speech but nonetheless ruled States can only criminalize speech "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and...likely to incite or produce such action." 3/
@only_champs As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, author of that "fire in a theatre" line, later wrote: "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." Like I said, combat bad speech with better speech. 5/5
@DerekMYoung I spent two years staffing the King County Council where I got hear "testimony" from the original anti-fascists, Stand Up America, the first Monday of every month