The statement addresses a public issue concerning the conduct and rulings of a judge in a high-profile tribunal, which is a matter of public interest and contributes to civic dialogue.
- The statement uses strong language ('plain disturbing') which could be seen as harmful, but it is primarily focused on the errors in the ruling rather than personal attacks. [-1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement does not engage in cyberbullying or hate speech, but it does question the competence of a public figure, which is a legitimate part of public discourse.Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement criticizes the judge's ruling, which is a form of constructive criticism, but it does not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+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 highlights the need for the judge to acknowledge and correct mistakes, which aligns with the principle of acknowledging and correcting errors. [+1]Principle 5:I will acknowledge and correct my mistakes.
- The statement upholds free speech by discussing a public issue responsibly, though the tone could be more neutral. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.