The statement 'Neither should be “policing” speech, but especially not the government, which is specifically barred from doing so under the constitution. The idea that somebody needs to police speech at all is bizarre. We never needed speech cops before and don’t now' constitutes public discourse as it engages with the public issue of free speech and government regulation.
- The statement does not appear to cause harm with words and actions. It is a critique of government regulation of speech, which is a legitimate public concern. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others and 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 does not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. It is more focused on a critique of policy rather than fostering empathy.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism of the idea of policing speech, particularly by the government. It does not engage in 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 upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly by discussing a significant constitutional issue. [+2]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.