Matt Taibbi

Rank 40 of 47

Score -85

+12

That’s a different issue. This bill and the antisemitism bill aren’t legitimate ways to push back.

They open the door for broad government speech control. Essentially these would create a “correct opinions” passport.

Kootenay Bob

@Kootenaybob0

441d

@mtaibbi It's all protected speech. It's just that calling for "Death to the Jews" feels more protected than pointing out the violent death cult that underpins Islam, or pointing out Men cannot be women.

5/12/2024, 5:00:41 PM

The statement in question is part of a broader conversation about proposed legislation that could impact freedom of speech and the application of the First Amendment in the context of government actions and policies. The statement specifically critiques the potential for these bills to enable broad government control over speech, suggesting they could lead to a situation where only 'correct opinions' are allowed, thereby stifling free discourse.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement aims to caution against harm that could arise from restrictive laws, aligning with the principle of doing no harm with words and actions. [+2]
Principle 2:
I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
The statement respects the dignity of others by advocating for broad free speech rights, opposing measures that could lead to discrimination or suppression of minority views. [+2]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
By critiquing potential government overreach, the statement promotes understanding of the implications of such laws on free speech and minority opinions, fostering empathy for those who might be adversely affected. [+2]
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 in constructive criticism of the proposed bills without resorting to personal attacks, focusing on the content and potential consequences of the legislation. [+2]
Principle 6:
I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
The statement uses its influence to discuss and potentially shape public policy regarding free speech and government control, aiming for the betterment of society by preserving fundamental rights. [+2]
Principle 7:
I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
The statement upholds the principles of free speech by critiquing measures that could infringe upon these rights, using the platform responsibly to raise awareness and integrity in public discourse. [+2]