Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Assignment on speech act theory
Silence by edgar lee
Applying speech acts theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Assignment on speech act theory
This source comes from Jason Satnley’s article about the power words have and how they can be used to silence people and the truth. Stanley mainly covers the topic of political silencing which is the way politicians use words to silence their opponents or also to silence any of rumors that my be flying around that politician. There is also what he describes as speech acts and how we take part in this every time we speak. He gives the example from Catharine MacKinnon and her article on how pornography silences women. That we have turn a woman’s speech act of saying “no” to mean something else in the world of pornography. He also gives the example of how silencing is not limited to a person and how big news companies say they give both sides
In the essay entitled Cuss Time, Jill McCorkle wrote about the freedom of expression. It was about the cuss time of her and her son by asking him to speak foul language for five minutes everyday in order to maximize his potential. She stated that denying the expression and freedom of speech could produce some bad impacts on them, such as people were unable to maximize their potentials, established the world around negatives, and were unable to contemplate about anything.
Explaining that not only does it subvert pleasures, it tramples “novel notions” for the sake of tradition, and encourages an impotent “moderation” (896, 1060). For Unjust Speech, he sees no reason to simply endure this façade when one can theoretically work around it. Unjust Speech encourages resistance, calling on man to “believe that nothing is shameful!” (1078). This part of his argument displays that Unjust Speech recognizes shame as the essential cornerstone of societal life, yet encourages humans to not let it define them. He advocates for strong individualism against Just Speech’s encouraging words about societal
Peter, Sagal. “Should There Be Limits on Freedom of Speech?” 25 March. 2013. PSB. PBS.com 14 Nov.
The people who question censorship and the use of censorship are known as the people who are against or anti-censorship. People who are anti-censorship believes that nothing should be hidden, and that everything should be open to the public. Gavin Mcinnes is a 45-year-old (2016) who is a writer, an actor, and comedian. Gavin Mcinnes had written an article which was taken down because it “has been reported by the community as hateful or abusive content” (Brown 1). The people who read Mcinnes article didn’t have to read or continue reading it when they became displeased with Mcinnes’s view. Those people did not have to read it if they did not like it. “The publication can choose what to publish… no matter how much outrage that content provokes”
Censorship is a great temptation, particularly when we see something that offends or frightens us. At such times, our best defense is to remember what J. M. Coetzee writes in Giving Offense: Essays on Censorship. "By their very nature, censors wound their own vision when they restrict what others can see. The one who pronounces the ban ... becomes, in effect, the blind one, the one at the center of the ring in the game of blind man's bluff."
Societies often struggle to define censorship. Interestingly, the nineteenth-century did not explicitly define the word “censorship” as Westerners understand it today. The nineteenth-century's definition of censorship is “the office of a censor” and the definition of censor is “an officer of Rome who had the power of correcting manners” (Johnson 112).
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” (Mill, 2002, pg.14) John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher of the 19th century, and said to be one of the most influential thinkers in the areas regarding social theory, political theory, and political economy had strong views regarding free speech. In his following quote, he states that if all mankind had an opinion or an action, and another individual had a different opinion, mankind would not be justified in silencing that one individual just like that one individual, if given the power to do so, would not be justified in silencing all of mankind. Mill’s argument is that every individual has value, meaning, and power within their opinions and that we should not be the ones to stop them from having the right to state their opinion. Their actions and who they are as a person should not be silenced. In the spirit of the greater good of mankind and freedom of expression, one must have the right to liberty and free expression without being silenced and the right to one’s own freedom.
Potter Stewart once said, “Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself”. The word Censorship simply means the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society. When censorship is the or one of the main roles in a community or in one's life then you lose control of all actions that take place every day. Being controlled by someone or something else forms a plain world for a person or organism to live in. Fahrenheit 451 helps prove the idea that censorship is more harmful to a society due to distraction, influence, and the restraining nature of the content.
Threw out the article judy blmue wrote about censorship a personal view she takes her readers on journey threw her eyes and makes them hop in her shoes to take a test drive threw her life and show her ins and outs of how she experience and dealt with censorship , with coming in contact ,learning ,and rebelling against it. She does in her article by using some clever yet effective ways of using the Rhetorical Strategies to get the reader to think a certain way and feel a certain way. Jude blume use the rhetorical strategies ethos, pathos, and logos to effectively persuade the reader and inform the reader that censorship is not up to a group of people but a personal choice.
...Dr. Sara. "How the Mind of a Censor Works: the Psychology of Censorship." School Library Journal, January 1996, p. 23-27.
Any speech therefore, however disagreeable it may be; that does not incite violence must be allowed in our society. One must then consider whether pornography may be classed as speech. Nadine Gourgey argues that speech is not solely defined as the communication of information, but rather encompasses any act made by a party that which can be viewed and comprehended by another. Gourgey states that if porno...
Exercising the freedom of speech has two sides: the speaker and the listener. Censorship is unfair to both sides. When it takes away the speaker’s Constitutional freedom of expression, it simultaneously revokes the listener’s right to develop an informed opinion based on unobstructed truth. This opinion has been supported by the courts. In 1982, an informal agreement between several broadcasters from major media outlets known as the Code of Broadcaster Conduct, which banned “depictions of sexual encounters, violence and drug use, as well as excessive advertising,” was nullified because it was a violation of First Amendment rights (“Broadcast Decency”). Excessive censorship is viewed as unnecessary by both the American public and by the government that endorses it.
To more specifically define the power of Congress to limit speech, the Court also considered the constitutionality of § 4 of the statute of 1917, which punishes conspiracies to obstruct and actual obstruction. The Court ruled, “the act (speaking, or circulating a paper), its tendency, and the intent with which it is done are the same, we perceive no ground for saying that success alone warrants making the act a crime” (Schenck 2). To ground this idea, Holmes references Goldman, which justifies criminalizing attempts at criminal activity, and writes to extend the ruling to include speech (Schenck 2). Again, in doing this, the Court allows the government to pursue charges against speech only if that speech poses the relevant threat of promoting criminal activity.
in any group of people, and there will be struggle to achieve it--be it a
Thus, much of the silencing effect can be inadvertent, though no less harmful in curtailing individual expression.