The statement questions the conviction of the Menendez brothers and suggests that public perception may have shifted over time, possibly influenced by a Netflix series. It hints at a broader discussion about justice and media influence, which can be considered public discourse.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but raises a question about a legal case, which could be seen as promoting a re-evaluation of justice.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- By questioning the conviction, it could promote understanding and empathy for the Menendez brothers, but it does not explicitly do so.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, but it does not provide constructive criticism or dialogue either.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 free speech to question a legal outcome, which is a responsible use of the platform, but it lacks depth in addressing the issue. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.