In reply to:
Thomas Lavin 🇺🇸 🇮🇪 🇮🇱
@Meta4icall
·
13d
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
13d
The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the issue of free speech and media freedom in the context of a political leader's actions. It contrasts the act of calling out fraud with the threat of revoking a media license, urging Americans to recognize the difference.
- The statement does not use harmful language and instead focuses on distinguishing between two actions, which aligns with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- By encouraging understanding of the difference between calling out fraud and threatening media freedom, the statement promotes understanding and empathy. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism by addressing the actions of a political leader without resorting to personal attacks. [+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 principle of free speech by criticizing the threat to revoke a media license, which is a responsible use of the platform. [+2]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.