Talk:Snyder v. United States

Dubious
Source #5, Source #6, and Source #7 respectively link to Bloomberg, Reuters, and The Washington Post without specifying which article, so those should be fixed.

Also, as for the article's statement "The dissent noted that ongoing relationships involving repeated gratuities can make explicit agreements unnecessary: 'An ongoing relationship marked by repeated gratuities makes explicit agreements unnecessary because the understanding between the parties is implicit and understood,'" it cites Source #3; Dissenting Opinion, p. 2; but I did a command f search for that quote on supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf, and I didn't find it. Did my command f search miss that? PiratePablo (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I will be adding a Dubious label to that quote in the article. PiratePablo (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct on all points. Since that quote is clearly not genuine (probably the illusory result of a WP:LLM), I have now simply removed it. SilverLocust 💬 03:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had listened to the oral argument and heard similar things in there, but I was doing this quickly, as I needed to leave and failed to double check the sources. It was an LLM hallucination. I'm now checking all sources and replacing them with legitimate ones. I know enough about this case from having followed it before the decision came out that I know there are sources that back up everything it says, but it was my mistake for not checking that the sources provided by the LLM are legitimate. I will make sure not to let that happen again. Sfieldman (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I added in correct citations for everything that is currently there as well as a legitimate quote from the oral argument to replace the hallucinated quote from the dissent. Is there a reason some of the other text was removed regarding other cases? Was it just not deemed sufficiently relevant? Sfieldman (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for improving your references. It would be a good idea to have a paragraph or two about how Snyder is one of several Supreme Court decisions narrowly construing public-corruption crimes (with mention of most prominent legal precedents). Those cases are listed in the navigation box at the bottom of the article.
 * But it isn't a good idea to have a section listing some prominent former politicians who have been tried for public-corruption crimes. This isn't an overview article about public-corruption cases (Federal prosecution of public corruption in the United States) but rather about this case. And you won't find similar sections on other articles for these cases.
 * Likewise, there could be a paragraph about how criticisms of Snyder and other public-corruption decisions have drawn a common thread between those and cases recognizing free-speech rights to spend money on political speech (e.g., Buckley, Citizens United, Cruz). Those are relevant to the criticism, though not legally relevant background to the decision (since there is no free-speech issue in this case). SilverLocust 💬 15:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Likewise, there could be a paragraph about how criticisms of Snyder and other public-corruption decisions have drawn a common thread between those and cases recognizing free-speech rights to spend money on political speech (e.g., Buckley, Citizens United, Cruz). Those are relevant to the criticism, though not legally relevant background to the decision (since there is no free-speech issue in this case). SilverLocust 💬 15:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Likewise, there could be a paragraph about how criticisms of Snyder and other public-corruption decisions have drawn a common thread between those and cases recognizing free-speech rights to spend money on political speech (e.g., Buckley, Citizens United, Cruz). Those are relevant to the criticism, though not legally relevant background to the decision (since there is no free-speech issue in this case). SilverLocust 💬 15:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)