Michael Schellenberger

Rank 39 of 47
|
Score -96
JD Vance
@JDVance
·
352d
Insulting someone is not a crime, and criminalizing speech is going to put real strain on European-US relationships.

This is Orwellian, and everyone in Europe and the US must reject this lunacy.
8/29/2025, 10:23:33 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
158d
"Now, the Göttingen public prosecutor's office, which has already gained a certain level of notoriety in the US, is investigating.... During the show, prosecutors were questioned about investigations into criminal hate speech and accompanied investigators on morning raids."
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
158d
At a time when Trump is considering sanctions against Europe for censorship, Germany has announced an investigation into X for "obstruction of justice" — even after X execs removed offending post. Germany's @_FriedrichMerz & EU's @vonderleyen are violating NATO's charter.

The statement engages in public discourse by discussing legal actions against a social media platform and its implications for free speech and international relations. It reflects concerns about censorship and legal jurisdiction.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement may harm by potentially misrepresenting legal actions as unjust, which could influence public opinion negatively. [-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 but could be seen as dismissive of legal processes, potentially undermining the dignity of those involved. [-1]
  3. 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 frames the issue in a confrontational manner. [-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.
    It does not engage in constructive dialogue, instead using charged language that could polarize opinions. [-1]