Reposted by Bret Baier
The statement discusses a Supreme Court case involving former President Trump and the concept of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his constitutional authority. This is a substantive engagement with a public issue, specifically legal and constitutional matters, and thus constitutes public discourse.
- The statement is neutral and factual, aiming to inform rather than harm. It adheres 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 respects the privacy and dignity of others by focusing on legal principles rather than personal attacks or derogatory language. It adheres to the principle of respecting privacy and dignity. [+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 provide information that could contribute to a more informed public. It neither strongly adheres to nor violates this principle.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement presents a legal argument without engaging in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. It adheres 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 discussing a significant legal issue with integrity. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.