Reposted by Michael Shellenberger
The statement discusses the arrest of a non-UK citizen for online speech, touching on issues of free speech and legal jurisdiction. It presents a critical view of the arrest, implying a potential overreach by authorities.
- The statement does not directly harm but could contribute to a polarized debate on free speech.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- It respects privacy but could be seen as critical of certain groups, potentially leading to indirect harm. [-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 engage in personal attacks but presents a one-sided view without engaging in 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.
- It uses influence to highlight a perceived injustice, aiming to provoke thought on free speech issues. [+1]Principle 6:I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
- The statement upholds free speech by questioning the arrest, but it could be more balanced. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.