Some end results could be good for the source but bad for the receiver, or vice versa.

Darlene is in the process of preparing a speech on global warming. She knowingly includes a source from a fringe group that has been previously discredited, but she thinks the source will really help her drive her argument home. What combination of the ethics pyramid does this case represent?

Freedom of speech is the right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations.

I haven’t really thought about the short- or long-term consequences of my speech.

I have attempted to persuade people by unnecessarily

tapping into emotion rather than logic.

I know who my sources of information are and I cited them.