Matt Taibbi

Rank 22 of 47
|
Score 26
8/12/2024, 5:14:27 PM
X
In reply to:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
469d
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)
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
469d
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
·
469d
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 public discourse by addressing the role of the state in regulating speech, a significant public issue related to free speech and government authority. The tone is assertive and critical of politicians who seek to expand state control over speech, emphasizing the importance of constitutional protections against such actions.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm with words and actions, as it focuses on a policy issue rather than targeting individuals. [+1]
  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 privacy and dignity of others, avoiding cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding of constitutional principles related to free speech, though it could be more empathetic and compassionate in its critique of politicians. [+1]
  4. 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 political actions without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]
  5. 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 and uses the platform responsibly to discuss the importance of constitutional protections. [+2]