Reposted by Bret Baier
The statement compares the fines imposed on Donald Trump for appraising the market value of his home with the fine imposed on Boeing for criminal fraud related to fatal crashes. The tone is critical and seems to imply a disparity in the justice system's handling of different cases.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but could be seen as inflammatory by suggesting a significant injustice. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but it does mention public figures and companies, which are generally considered fair game in public discourse.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 promote understanding, empathy, or compassion; it is more focused on highlighting perceived injustice. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue; it makes a comparison that could be seen as a personal attack on the justice system or the individuals involved. [-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 its influence to highlight a perceived societal issue, which could be seen as an attempt to better society by calling attention to potential injustices. [+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 to express a viewpoint, though the integrity of the comparison could be questioned. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.