Matt Taibbi

Rank 23 of 47
|
Score 29
8/25/2025, 6:25:35 PM
X
In reply to:
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
168d
I read it. I actually think that’s worse. It’s a backdoor way to get to speech policing by describing flag burning as an element of the crime, when it isn’t
Mike Ward
@wards_66
·
168d
@mtaibbi Important to read the EO, burning the flag does not result in jail, it’s only if you are doing it to incite violence

The statement critiques the interpretation of legal actions related to free speech, specifically referencing the events of January 6th and the prosecution of flag burning. It suggests a political bias in how speech is being defined and regulated.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly harm but implies a critique of political actions, which could be seen as divisive. [-1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, as it focuses on criticizing a political group. [-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 criticism but lacks constructive dialogue, focusing instead on a perceived political maneuver. [-1]