In reply to:
Brian Woods
@Brian_WPA
·
470d
The statement in question is part of a larger conversation involving multiple participants discussing the actions and statements of the Metropolitan Police (Met Police) in the UK. The conversation touches on issues of law enforcement, free speech, and international jurisdiction, which are public issues. Therefore, it constitutes public discourse.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but implies a threat of legal action against 'keyboard warriors,' which could be seen as intimidating. [-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 the broader conversation includes derogatory language ('Eat a cauldron of dicks') which violates this principle. [-2]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 asserting legal authority. [-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 is more of a warning or threat, which could be seen as a form of personal attack. [-2]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 principle of free speech by addressing the issue of online behavior and legal consequences, but the tone and context of the broader conversation undermine responsible and respectful discourse.Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.