Patrick Morrisey
@MorriseyWV
·
131d
The statement discusses a Supreme Court decision and its implications on regulatory authority, which is a substantive public issue. It also endorses a political figure, suggesting their potential impact on governance.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but could be seen as polarizing by framing the court decision as a positive change without acknowledging potential negative impacts.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, as it presents a one-sided view of a complex legal issue. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in personal attacks but lacks constructive dialogue with opposing views.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 support a political figure, which could be seen as promoting a specific agenda rather than societal betterment.Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech but could use more balanced and responsible discourse.Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.