Reposted by Jake Tapper 🦅
The statement constitutes public discourse as it engages with a public issue concerning the mental acuity of a former President, which is a matter of public interest and debate. The tone is investigative and aims to substantiate claims with evidence, as indicated by the mention of footage and a sizzle reel.
- The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but discussing someone's mental acuity can be sensitive and potentially harmful if not handled with care. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects privacy to some extent by focusing on public figures, but it could be seen as intrusive if it speculates on personal health without substantial evidence. [-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 explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it focuses on critique rather than constructive dialogue. [-1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in criticism of a public figure, which is a part of public discourse, but it should ensure that it does not devolve into 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 uses its platform to discuss a public issue, which aligns with free speech, but it should ensure that it does so responsibly and with integrity. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.