Michael Schellenberger

Rank 42 of 47
|
Score -120
9/18/2025, 3:05:32 PM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
120d
This was a bad decision on a badly argued case
Avik Roy
@Avik
·
121d
Guys, it was literally *June 2024* when the Supreme Court ruled that it was ok for the Biden Administration to pressure tech platforms to censor COVID lockdown skeptics. No one tweeting today about the “dire threats to free speech” had anything to say about it.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
120d
Also bad
Greg Price
@greg_price11
·
121d
2023

Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer demand Fox take Tucker Carlson off the air for reporting the January 6 tapes
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
120d
These two things can be true at the same time
— we should denounce the dehumanization
— the government should not demand censorship
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
120d
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
670d
Jeff Kosseff: "Hey, Let's Not Rethink The First Amendment"

Leading free speech scholar pushes back against widespread claim that "peer-to-peer misinformation" on the Internet justifies government censorship

by @shellenberger

Many journalists, university professors, and
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
120d
I agree we don’t know what if any role the government had in the decisions by ABC and Nextar. But the appearance of influence is enough to raise alarms.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
120d
It’s true that there are political broadcasting rules (equal-time provisions, reasonable access for candidates). None of those applied in the Kimmel situation.

The statement critiques the tendency to justify hypocrisy in political discourse, emphasizing the importance of maintaining integrity regardless of opponents' actions. It addresses the broader issue of free speech and government influence, contributing to public discourse on these topics.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement aligns with the principle of doing no harm by advocating against hypocrisy, which can harm public trust. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    It promotes understanding and integrity by encouraging consistent ethical standards in political discourse. [+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 by addressing a common issue in political behavior without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]