Michael Schellenberger

Rank 45 of 47

Score -143

Reposted by Michael Shellenberger

-1

The United States has the sovereign right to determine who may enter our country. It is an entirely appropriate measure for @StateDept to restrict malicious actors intent on quashing our citizens’ and corporations’ rights to freedom of speech and expression.

Free speech isn’t

Kaja Kallas

@kajakallas

The decision by the U.S. to impose travel restrictions on European citizens and officials is unacceptable and an attempt to challenge our sovereignty.

Europe will keep defending its values — freedom of expression, fair digital rules, and the right to regulate our own space.

12/24/2025, 4:07:01 PM

The statement addresses the U.S. decision to impose travel restrictions on certain European individuals, framing it as a sovereign right to protect free speech. It engages in public discourse by discussing international relations and freedom of expression.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement aims to justify the travel restrictions as a protective measure, which could be seen as striving to do no harm, but it may also harm diplomatic relations.
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
It promotes understanding of the U.S. perspective on protecting free speech, but may lack empathy towards European concerns.
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 dialogue by presenting a rationale for the restrictions, but it could be seen as dismissive of European sovereignty concerns. [-1]
Principle 6:
I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
The statement uses its platform to assert U.S. rights and values, potentially for the betterment of its own society, but may not consider broader international implications.