Reposted by Jake Tapper 🦅
The statement by Hegseth constitutes public discourse as it addresses a significant public issue involving national security and the conduct of a public official. The tone is defensive, aiming to discredit the allegations by labeling them as 'anonymous smears' from 'disgruntled former employees.' The intent is to reassure the public and show alignment with the president.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but attempts to discredit sources without addressing the substance of the allegations, which could indirectly harm public trust. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects privacy by not naming individuals but could be seen as dismissive of whistleblowers, potentially discouraging legitimate concerns. [-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 engage in constructive dialogue or address the allegations substantively, instead dismissing them as smears. [-2]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.
- There is no acknowledgment of any mistakes or willingness to correct them, as the statement outright denies the allegations. [-2]Principle 5:I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
- The statement uses influence to align with the president and dismiss allegations, which may not contribute to societal betterment if the allegations are true. [-1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech but may not use the platform responsibly if it dismisses legitimate concerns without investigation.Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.