The statement constitutes public discourse as it engages with public issues related to border policy and immigration, and it references a specific incident involving a personal loss, which is tied to a broader political debate.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but implies that current policies are harmful, which could be seen as a critique rather than a harmful action.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the privacy and dignity of Rachel by expressing sympathy for her loss, but it could be seen as using her tragedy for political purposes, which might be considered insensitive. [-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 promote understanding, empathy, or compassion beyond expressing sympathy for Rachel's loss. It primarily serves to criticize a political figure and policy. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in criticism of Vice President Kamala Harris's policies but 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 uses influence to advocate for a particular political stance, which the speaker believes is for the betterment of society, though this is subjective. [+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 political opinion, though the integrity of using a personal tragedy for political gain can be questioned.Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.