Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
146d
In reply to:
Virginie Joron
@v_joron
·
147d
The statement criticizes the European Parliament and specific individuals for allegedly censoring Members of the European Parliament and the internet, suggesting a broader issue of censorship within the EU. It implies a violation of free speech and raises concerns about transparency and accountability in governmental actions.
- The statement could be seen as attempting to highlight potential harm caused by censorship, aligning with the principle of striving to do no harm. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- It challenges the actions of public figures and institutions, which is a legitimate part of public discourse, but it should ensure it does not engage in personal attacks.Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement engages in criticism of public figures and institutions, which is constructive if it remains focused on actions and policies rather than personal attacks. [+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.
- By raising concerns about censorship, the statement could be seen as using influence to address societal issues, aligning with the principle of using influence for societal betterment. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement addresses issues of free speech and censorship, aligning with the principle of upholding free speech. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.