Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note Rating

2024-10-25 19:25:29 UTC - NOT_HELPFUL

Rated by Participant: 90524B326C04F54027741BC0AF5AC6C03D545F4762AAC2E0A39AE1A8ABF38485
Participant Details

Original Note:

NNN - This question was already addressed in the 2018 case of Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky: "No conceivable governmental interest can sustain a statute that prohibits, and chills, the entire realm of political speech that can be conveyed on apparel." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/16-1435/

All Note Details

Original Tweet

All Information

  • noteId - 1849536808322781359
  • participantId -
  • raterParticipantId - 90524B326C04F54027741BC0AF5AC6C03D545F4762AAC2E0A39AE1A8ABF38485
  • createdAtMillis - 1729884329255
  • version - 2
  • agree - 0
  • disagree - 0
  • helpful - 0
  • notHelpful - 0
  • helpfulnessLevel - NOT_HELPFUL
  • helpfulOther - 0
  • helpfulInformative - 0
  • helpfulClear - 0
  • helpfulEmpathetic - 0
  • helpfulGoodSources - 0
  • helpfulUniqueContext - 0
  • helpfulAddressesClaim - 0
  • helpfulImportantContext - 0
  • helpfulUnbiasedLanguage - 0
  • notHelpfulOther - 0
  • notHelpfulIncorrect - 0
  • notHelpfulSourcesMissingOrUnreliable - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculationOrBias - 0
  • notHelpfulMissingKeyPoints - 0
  • notHelpfulOutdated - 0
  • notHelpfulHardToUnderstand - 0
  • notHelpfulArgumentativeOrBiased - 0
  • notHelpfulOffTopic - 0
  • notHelpfulSpamHarassmentOrAbuse - 0
  • notHelpfulIrrelevantSources - 0
  • notHelpfulOpinionSpeculation - 0
  • notHelpfulNoteNotNeeded - 0
  • ratingsId - 184953680832278135990524B326C04F54027741BC0AF5AC6C03D545F4762AAC2E0A39AE1A8ABF38485