In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
5d
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
5d
The statement argues for the protection of free speech, even if it involves hate speech, and criticizes the denial of visas based on speech. It suggests that restricting speech makes a country appear weak.
- The statement does not strive to do no harm, as it supports the expression of hate speech, which can be harmful. [-2]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- It does not respect the dignity of others, as it defends speech that could be considered harassment or hate speech. [-2]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 criticism or dialogue, as it dismisses concerns about hate speech without addressing potential harms. [-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.
- It uses influence to promote a specific view on free speech, but does not consider the societal impact of hate speech. [-1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech but does so without addressing the responsibility that comes with it. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.