{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03185437997724687, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01820250284414107, 'mean_word_length': 5.285714285714286, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A solution in search of a problem: Commentary on O'Donohue and Fisher (2022).

O'Donohue and Fisher (2022) make some good arguments about how free speech has been jeopardized in recent years, but few if any of those arguments concern psychologists directly. Furthermore, because free speech is codified in the First Amendment, it is unclear why or how its inclusion in the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (American Psychological Association, 2017), would add anything meaningful. The arguments posed by O'Donohue and Fisher are far ranging but seldom specific to the work of psychologists. While the additional language on free speech might be well suited for the Ethics Code's aspirational principles, the proposed amendment is neither suitable nor necessary within the enforceable standards. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).