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
Allegedly, but reddit also spent tons of money on stupid shit. My favorite example is their braindead stupid million dollar Superbowl ad, but they also doubled the number of employees to 1400 in 2021. And all they have to show for it is a slow, ugly website and a trashy, extra-monetized mobile app. Fuck em.
Damn yall must have the shittiest popeyes, the biscuits at the one near me are so good
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.
mk bud. i cant believe you still dont understand why those rates are misleading. good luck out there