Your statistic doesn’t support your conclusion. His statement is not contradicted, and is in fact true.
Several articles about how poorer taxpayers are significantly more likely to be targeted:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/irs-audit-eitc-five-times-as-likely-to-get-audited/
https://www.propublica.org/article/irs-sorry-but-its-just-easier-and-cheaper-to-audit-the-poor
An article about how audit rates are dropping in general, and dropping fastest for those with the highest incomes:
I never said to ignore it for low income taxpayers, but the statistic you provided is incredibly misleading. Plus the IRS would recoup far more money by auditing higher income taxpayers at much greater rates.
the misleading thing about that statistic is that there are far, far fewer wealthy people than there are normal. even with the rate of audits technically being lower, the number of audits of normal people is still far, far greater, and is where the IRS’s focus truly is
Why are you shifting this argument so far? I never claimed the guy had tourette’s, and I never said this guy shouldn’t be insitutionalized. This is a completely irrelevant example.
The point I’m making is that the “fire” is a classic example of speech that isn’t protected in the US, but with this ruling there’s no way to prove intent. So what if I sat down and continued watching the movie afterwards? I just got over the delusion. And someone with tourette’s would probably apologize, try to calm people down, or even avoid a theater altogether. I’m pretty sure that someone with a peanut allergy can’t sue a peanut farm if they go visit and sample the produce; if you know there’s an extra danger for you specifically in performing an activity then you are responsible.
Not to mention tourette’s could never cause targeted, violent, electronic-message based harassment either. This is a focused, intentional action.
Completely insane ruling. Wild that Kagan went across the aisle for this.
the First Amendment requires proofs of mental state
So I guess it’s basically impossible to convict anyone of anything involving speech? If I yell “fire” in a crowded theater, how can you prove I wasn’t having a delusion that there was a fire? Maybe there was an explosion in the movie and I was so immersed I thought it was real!
Dude had previous convictions and spent years doing this harassing, it’s not like this was an isolated mental break. Truly insane.
It seems like a deliberate attempt to cause trouble and a federation debate to me. All that nonsense belongs on exploding-heads where it can be easily ignored
It’s a bug. Not sure if it’ll get fixed anytime soon, though… the guy who runs my instance explained it to me here: https://lemm.ee/comment/171585
dang whoever wrote this really needs a proofreader
mk bud. i cant believe you still dont understand why those rates are misleading. good luck out there