Matt Taibbi

Rank 34 of 47
|
Score -42
5/6/2024, 12:35:03 PM
X
In reply to:
KaptianKup
@KUP1089
·
425d
@UnboundMonkey @mtaibbi Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919),
UnboundMonkey
@UnboundMonkey
·
425d
@KUP1089 @mtaibbi Na, in America we have the freedom to be verbally kind or hateful. You're feelings don't matter.
KaptianKup
@KUP1089
·
425d
@mtaibbi Hate speech is not free speech and hate speech has consequences
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
425d
This has nothing to do with Gaza and everything to do with defending the speech rights of Americans, which I’d think pro-Palestinian protesters would care about since the House just voted to make many of their slogans illegal. But right, who needs civil liberties advocates?
Bama Dude
@BamaDude77
·
425d
@Dahuuu @mtaibbi Love how people put such civil aesthetics around this atrocity in some ridiculous attempt to seem "balanced". It's so ridiculous.

Like, please kindly STFU

The statement '@KUP1089 @UnboundMonkey Dude that hasn't been law for a long time. Try Brandenburg v. Ohio' is part of a Twitter conversation thread discussing the legality and implications of hate speech in the context of U.S. law. The statement specifically references a legal case, Brandenburg v. Ohio, to correct a previous mention of Schenck v. United States, thereby contributing to a discussion on the evolution of free speech rights in America. This qualifies as public discourse as it engages in a substantive debate about legal interpretations and their societal implications.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aims to correct misinformation and does so without harmful language, aligning with the principle of doing no harm with words. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    By providing accurate legal information, the statement promotes understanding of U.S. free speech laws, fostering greater comprehension among participants. [+1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages constructively by correcting a legal reference without resorting to personal attacks, focusing solely on the factual and legal aspects. [+1]
  4. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The correction of legal misinterpretations contributes to a more informed public, using influence to better societal understanding of law and rights. [+1]
  5. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement responsibly uses the platform to discuss and clarify important legal precedents, upholding the integrity of free speech discussions. [+1]