The statement reports on the absence of Justice Clarence Thomas from a Supreme Court session without providing an explanation. It is a factual report on a public figure's participation in a significant civic institution, which can be considered public discourse as it relates to the functioning of the judicial system.
- The statement does no harm as it simply reports a fact without speculation or negative commentary. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects Justice Thomas's privacy by not speculating on the reasons for his absence. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement does not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, but it does not detract from these values either.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- There is no criticism or dialogue present, so this principle is not applicable.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 does not acknowledge or correct mistakes as it is a straightforward report without claims or assertions that could be mistaken.Principle 5:I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
- The statement uses its influence to inform the public about the functioning of the Supreme Court, which can be seen as contributing to the betterment of society. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds the principles of free speech by responsibly reporting on a matter of public interest without bias or malice. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.