Michael Schellenberger

Rank 33 of 47
|
Score -40
America First Legal
@America1stLegal
·
275d
@JudiciaryGOP /11 The Supreme Court’s major questions doctrine arguably prohibits CISA from monitoring election-related speech because it has no “clear congressional authorization” to do so.
12/20/2024, 1:08:54 AM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
275d
Thank you and bravo to @America1stLegal for their discovery of these damning documents, which show @CISAgov @CISACyber going far beyond its congressional mandate.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
275d
Department Of Homeland Security Illegally Targeted Covid Dissent, New Documents Suggest

DHS’s cybersecurity agency went far beyond its congressional mandate in hunting wrongthink and monitoring emotions

by @galexybrane & @shellenberger
Chris Krebs, founding director of the…
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
275d
The government didn’t censor anyone on Covid, say the media. But it did. Facebook’s Zuckerberg even said he regretted giving in to the government's demands. And now, new documents reveal that the Dept. of Homeland Security may have broken the law by hunting down Covid wrongthink.

The statement and its context involve allegations against the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regarding overreach and potential legal violations in monitoring and censoring COVID-19-related discourse. This discussion engages with public issues such as government transparency, free speech, and the limits of governmental authority, thus constituting public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement raises concerns about potential harm caused by government overreach, aligning with the principle of striving to do no harm by highlighting possible legal violations. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It respects privacy and dignity by focusing on institutional actions rather than personal attacks, adhering to the principle of respecting privacy and dignity. [+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 in constructive criticism of government actions, aligning with the principle of engaging in constructive dialogue. [+1]
  4. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    By addressing potential governmental overreach, the statement uses its platform to discuss issues relevant to societal betterment, aligning with the principle of using influence for societal betterment. [+1]