In reply to:
Ilya Shapiro
@ishapiro
·
589d
Vivek Ramaswamy
@VivekGRamaswamy
·
590d
The statement constitutes public discourse as it engages in a substantive legal debate regarding the potential for a presidential pardon in a high-profile legal case involving a former president. The tone is professional and seeks to further the discussion by requesting a counter-argument to a legal position.
- The statement does not cause harm and is focused on a legal argument, adhering to the principle of doing no harm with words and actions. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement promotes understanding by seeking a counter-argument, which can foster a more comprehensive discussion and understanding of the legal issue. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive dialogue by asking for a counter-argument rather than attacking the individual, adhering to the principle of constructive criticism and dialogue. [+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.
- The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly by engaging in a substantive legal discussion. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.