The statement involves a public figure and an association speaking out against a specific amendment, which suggests engagement with a public issue or policy. This constitutes public discourse as it addresses a societal concern and contributes to civic dialogue.
- The statement does not provide enough information to determine if it strives to do no harm with words and actions.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- There is no indication of disrespecting privacy or engaging in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.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 provide enough context to determine if it promotes understanding, empathy, and compassion.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not provide enough context to determine if it engages in constructive criticism and dialogue without personal attacks.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 suggests using influence to address a public issue, which could be seen as using influence for societal betterment. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech by engaging in public discourse on a policy issue. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.