Suchergebnisse

As the anti-vax industry continues to stoke fear and incite vaccine resistance, some means must be found to detoxify their false messages. Counterspeech, the preferred mode to deal with unfortunate rhetoric, is both ineffective and counter-effective when addressing factual "scientific speech" addressing health, I show here that many instances of the most potent anti-vax speech arise in the context of arguably commercial speech. I therefore investigate other free speech protections available to shield factually false anti-vax speech used in this context, concluding that while complete First Amendment protection may exist in the context of political speech (without proof of fraud), protections are more limited in the context of commercial speech. I then investigate the commercial ties of anti-vax groups and their mechanisms used in their strikingly effective outreach targeting insular audiences: the conference and pamphlet vehicles Research indicates that these anti-vax vehicles incorporate fingerprints of commercial enterprise, thereby making them eligible for regulation under the doctrine of compelled speech. I conclude by proposing that this approach allows for requiring imposition of warning labels on pamphlets as well as conference advertising and marketing. This novel approach may provide the salutary benefit not obtainable by counterspeech.

The purpose of this study is to explain the various forms of speech acts used in concession speeches. Concession speech is a term used in politics to describe speeches given by losing candidates after an election and after the overall vote, the result is known. The data of this study were taken from four types of concession speeches delivered by losing American candidates in the form of concession speeches: John McCain (2008), Mitt Romney (2012), Hillary Clinton (2016), and Donald Trump (2021). The method used in this study is a qualitative descriptive method because it uses words rather than numbers as a reference for the data to be studied, and it implies obtaining results for collecting the data included in the data sources and analyzing them to detect differences in concessions, speaking actions and Pragmatic discourse analysis approach to speech. The theory used is derived from the theory of Searle (1976), Cutting (2003), Holmes (2013), Leech (1947). The results show (1) five types of speech acts, namely representative (fact, statements, describing, and conclusion), expressive (thanking, congratulating, praising, and wishing) directive (inviting, requesting, suggesting, and ordering), and commissive (promising, offering), (2) the language function of each type of speech acts according to the context used by the concession speech, such as expressing gratitude, working together in building America, etc. (3) the most widely used in concession speech are expressive speech acts (thanking and praising) and representative speech acts (statements). The results of this study indicate that the losing candidate's sportsmanship supports the winning candidate and the various words used to say the same thing contributes to the development of English vocabulary.

This research investigates assertive speech acts in Donald Trump's presidential speeches. It classifies the assertive speech acts based on their illocutionary forces according to Bach and Harnish (1979). The data were taken from three speeches by Donald Trump. The results show that the illocutionary forces of assertive speech acts found in the speeches are affirming, alleging, asserting, avowing, claiming, declaring, denying, maintaining, propounding, saying, and stating. The act of stating is the most commonly used (44%). The findings suggest that Trump uses the act of stating mostly because he wants the hearer to believe him that the policies he has made are the best for the United States.

"Why are Australians getting free speech Wrong? Australia is the land of the 'Fair Go'. But does this extend to giving everyone the right to speak freely about politics? While most Australains take this vital freedom for granted, in Speech Matters political analyst Katharine Gelber shows why many of Australia's laws and policies are actually damaging our democratic ideals. A council officer shuts down a Sydney art exhibition that challenges the basis for the Iraq war; big day out organisers are attacked for asking attendees not to wear the Australian flag after the Cronulla riots. Gelber investigates a wide range of political expression to discover what value Australians place on free speech: from the national flag, hate speech and anti-terrorism laws to protest, campaigns against corporate actions and provocative art. Gelber considers the rules that regulate our speech and actions alongside the views of everyday Australians on these issues. What Gelber finds is a political culture that is failing free speech. In Australia, powerful companies can silence dissent,and even peaceful protest can be difficult to carry out. Filled with controversial examples to fuel the debate, Speech Matters challenges Australians to rethink freedom of speech. It's time to give everyone a voice in running the country."--Publisher's website

Debates about free speech and academic freedom—and their limits—have become sharper but also more confused. Conservatives demand greater restrictions, but so too do radicals worried that offensive speech may disrupt campus communities. Universities have a special responsibility to secure the right balance between free expression and offensive speech.

Geoffrey Hill's Speech! Speech! (2000) encapsulates two thousand years' worth of utterances in a symbolic act of remembrance and expression of despair for the current age, in which we find "our minds and ears fouled by degraded public speech—by media hype, insipid sermons, hollow political rhetoric, and the ritual misuse of words." Through 120 densely allusive stanzas—"As many as the days that were | of SODOM"—the poem wrestles this condition from within, fighting fire with fire in an alchemical symbolic labour that transmutes the dross of corrupt and clichéd idiom into a dynamic logopoeia which proves true Hill's persistent claim: "genuinely difficult art is truly democratic." Such is the weird, ambivalently hostile position of poetry in the present world and thus the space of our real connection to it: "Whatever strange relationship we have with the poem, it is not one of enjoyment. It is more like being brushed past, or aside, by an alien being" (Hill). Befriending this estrangement, embracing it as a more amicable brushing-up-against, Hassan's Annotations is a thorough and patient explication of Speech! Speech! that both clarifies and deepens the poem's difficulties, illuminating its polyphonic language and careening discursive movement. The author's method is at once commentarial, descriptive, and narratorial, staying faithfully with the poem and following its complex verbal and logical turns. The book generously provides, rather than direct interpretative incursion, a more durable and productive document of "the true nature / of this achievement" (stanza 92), a capacious, open understanding of the text that will prove invaluable to its present and future readers.