Matt Taibbi

Rank 22 of 47

Score 26

The second is that the state has special responsibility to “protect” us from bad speech. The opposite is true. The constitution specifically enjoins the government from restricting citizen-to-citizen discussion. (3/4)

8/12/2024, 5:14:27 PM

In reply to:

Matt Taibbi

@mtaibbi

470d

The new digital censorship movement is based on two fallacies. The first is that voters are too stupid to sort out information on their own, so they need institutional vanguards to weigh information, “help” them choose. (2/4)

Matt Taibbi

@mtaibbi

470d

The American speech system is a simple premise. A free press delivers the information, voters make the political decisions. We’re supposed to trust audiences to know what’s best for them. (1/4)

The statement engages in a substantive discussion about the role of the state in regulating speech and the constitutional principles surrounding free speech. It addresses public concerns about censorship and the responsibilities of the government, thus constituting public discourse.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not appear to cause harm with words or actions. It focuses on a constitutional argument rather than attacking individuals or groups. [+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 dialogue by addressing a specific argument about censorship and the role of the state. 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 principle of free speech by arguing against government restrictions on citizen-to-citizen discussion and emphasizing the constitutional protection of free speech. [+2]