In reply to:
Rashida Tlaib
@RashidaTlaib
·
9d
The statement 'DTE doesn't want public hearings' is part of a public discourse as it engages with a public issue concerning the approval process of a significant data center project in Michigan. The statement implies a critique of DTE's approach to bypassing public hearings, which is a matter of public interest and governance.
- The statement does not directly cause harm but implies a critique of DTE's actions, which could be seen as holding them accountable.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects privacy and dignity, focusing on a corporate entity rather than individuals. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement indirectly promotes understanding by highlighting a lack of public hearings, which could be seen as a call for transparency. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement does not engage in personal attacks but critiques a corporate decision, aligning with constructive dialogue. [+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 questioning the lack of public hearings, the statement uses influence to advocate for public involvement in decision-making. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech by critiquing a corporate action and using a platform to raise awareness. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.