If we maintain strict concept definitions we will see that people who opt for true contradictions are violating the law of non contradiction in concept.
First the proper definition of a deductive reasoning term contradiction. A contradiction is an inconsistent relationship between two or more propositions where the truth value of one of the propositions MUST BE TRUE while the one of the others MUST be false. That is strictly that Both propositions cannot be true and both propositions cannot be false.
In contrast Mathematical logic uses the same term contradiction differently. To math people a contradiction is any premise A and the occurrence of premise not A. Furthermore contradiction is also defined in Mathematical logic as any proposition that is always false. So all triangles have four sides will be a contradiction eventhough there is no comparison to another proposition present. This is inconsistent of math people who say logic is only about form. To say a triangle has four sides is a contradiction is a CONTENT matter and not of logical FORM.
Mathematical logic has eliminated other inconsistent relationships such as contrary, sub contrary, sub alternation, etc. In this way what a math person call contradictory may not fit the original definition. Math some how changed the meaning and people need to understand the same word is being used DIFFERENTLY. I suppose contrary propositions would be called contradictory by math people in error: "all black holes are formed from dying and collapsed stars" compared to the proposition "No black holes are formed from dying and collapsed stars." These are not contradictory propositions to each other. It turns out both are false.
The law of non contradiction is often read super literally by people outside of philosophy. What the laws implies or expresses is that no two propositions can have the same context, domain and hold more than one truth value simultaneously. In order to pull off a true contradiction allegedly, one needs to change the context the word is used, change the domain of discourse or change other parameters that were not mentioned in the original proposition. This mainly means equivocation of some kind or changing of the topic in order to make the same proposition have multiple truth values.
Stick to the proper definitions of the concept and we see the three fundamental logic laws hold.