Michael Schellenberger

Rank 40 of 47

Score -94

America has long maintained a high bar for defamation, and with good reason. In a country that values free speech as a foundational right, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that public figures must prove “actual malice” to prevail in court: not just that a false

5/7/2025, 4:59:50 PM

In reply to:

Michael Shellenberger

@shellenberger

40d

For years, Democrats warned of AI-driven misinformation and hate speech as reasons for censorship. But now, in the face of one of the clearest cases of AI-driven misinformation, they're silent. That's because the victim was a conservative, the very person they wanted to censor.

The statement discusses the high bar for defamation in the U.S. and its connection to free speech, which is a public discourse topic. It highlights the legal standard of 'actual malice' for public figures, emphasizing the balance between protecting reputations and upholding free speech rights.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not cause harm and focuses on legal standards. [+1]
Principle 6:
I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
It uses the platform to discuss important legal principles related to free speech and defamation. [+1]
Principle 7:
I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
It upholds free speech principles by discussing the legal framework that supports it. [+1]