In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
121d
The statement addresses the application of political broadcasting rules in a specific situation, suggesting that these rules did not apply to the Kimmel situation. It is part of a broader discussion on First Amendment rights and government influence on speech, referencing a Supreme Court decision. The tone is factual and clarifies a legal point.
- The statement strives to clarify a legal misunderstanding, aligning with the principle of doing no harm with words. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement engages in constructive dialogue by providing factual information relevant to the discussion, without personal attacks. [+1]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.
- By clarifying legal principles, the statement uses its influence to contribute to a better understanding of free speech rights. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.