Matt Taibbi

Rank 21 of 47

Score 40

The reader-added context here is wrong. Walz specifically says there’s no constitutional protection for “hate speech,” which is legal in the US. Even amid discussion of banned election speech, it’s incorrect to say there’s “no constitutional protection” for misinformation.

Glenn Greenwald

@ggreenwald

471d

That Tim Walz falsely believes the free speech guarantee doesn't include what he considers to be 'misinformation' or 'hate speech' will bother almost no Dem supporters, since the vast majority of them want the state to be empowered to censor dissent.

8/9/2024, 3:47:22 PM

The statement constitutes public discourse as it engages with the public issue of free speech and constitutional protections, specifically addressing misinformation and hate speech.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not appear to cause harm with words and actions. It corrects a perceived misinformation, which can be seen as a positive contribution to public discourse. [+1]
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 privacy and dignity of others. It does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]
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 by correcting a perceived error in the context provided by another user. It does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]
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 correcting misinformation and contributing to a more informed public dialogue. It uses the platform responsibly and with integrity. [+1]