The statement constitutes public discourse as it involves a substantive engagement with a public issue, specifically the use of taxpayer dollars for appealing a gender-affirming ruling. The tone is inquisitive and seeks accountability from a public official regarding the allocation of public funds.
- The statement does not appear to cause harm with words or actions. It is a straightforward question seeking information and accountability. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others. It does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement promotes understanding by seeking clarification on the use of taxpayer dollars, which can foster informed public discourse. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism and dialogue by asking a relevant question without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+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 uses the reporter's influence to seek transparency and accountability, 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 and uses the platform responsibly and with integrity by asking a pertinent question in a public forum. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.