Reposted by Bret Baier
The statement reports on a Supreme Court decision involving Justice Amy Coney Barrett as a swing vote in a case about NIH grants related to DEI or gender ideology. It also mentions Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent, using a metaphor to describe the court's actions. The statement engages with public issues related to judicial decisions, funding, and ideological debates, thus constituting public discourse.
- The statement does not appear to cause harm with words or actions, as it reports on a judicial decision without inflammatory language. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others, focusing on public figures and their professional roles without engaging in harassment or hate speech. [+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 primarily reports on a judicial decision and dissent.Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments, instead focusing on the professional actions and opinions of public figures. [+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.
- The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses its platform to inform the public about a significant judicial decision. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.