Jon Lovett Funniest Comedian Speech

Carlson gives evidence of the decline in public discourse by summarizing an incident in which a talk radio host crossed the line of decency by failing to respect a person whose ideas differed from his and his listeners’. Why is it important to maintain civility toward those whom you disagree?

Currently we have 27 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the choice of this author had to be the First amendment. Though the selection officially was “Freedom of the Press,” that constitutional guarantee is technically conjoined with its ‘brother’ amendment and that is the “Freedom of Speech.” You really cannot have one without the other. Ying-yang, these civil liberties were so significant to the Founding Fathers that they made sure to place them in the very first documented privileges articulated by the Constitution. For this presentation, primary focus and comparison is made to what will be the two most egregious and corrupt presidential scandals in this half-century, President Richard Nixon and President Donald Trump. On the

In this paper I will analyze the arguments presented in Caroline West’s article, “Words That Silence? Freedom of Express and Racist Hate Speech.” Here West probes what is meant by free speech and in so doing, identifies three dimensions of speech from which the value of free speech derives. These are production and distribution, comprehension, and consideration. Her major premise is that absent requirements of comprehension or consideration, free speech lacks the value it is generally accorded. West argues that allowing the production and distribution of racist hate speech has a silencing effect on, not only the production and distribution of speech by racial minorities, but the comprehension and consideration of their speech as well. She concludes that this silencing may have a net effect of diminishing free speech.

When I was reading The Transformation of silence into Language and action by Audre Lorde, remember me that day at work about my strong acensent. The article of Audre Lorden at the end have the big reflection that let broke the silence will be better to became a strong person and know that my voice have to be lisent because it is important. For me is important to speak so I can be hear by the customer and get better in my inglish. For the woman was important to broke the silence so she can be out of their painful of be silence. Also in my experience of racism at work reflect the philosophy by Judith Butler and is where I find what I really think about language, and culture. I was like I don't want to know how far cruelty and ignorance

Trigger Warnings In recent discussions of trigger warnings a controversial issue has been if whether American campuses should permit trigger warnings. Trigger warnings are admonishes that professors are expected to provide and imply that, certain contents in class may be upsetting or offensive to an individual. The objectives of trigger warnings are to prevent students from coming across “offensive” discussions, ideas, words, or anything that may cause students to feel an emotional affect. On the other hand, some argue that trigger warnings on course materials do a disservice to the intellectual development of students and interferes with an individual’s freedom of speech.

Sports movies are knows as blockbuster movies. Sports movies are know for there monologues. A monologue is a long speech by one actor in a play or movie, or as part of a theatrical or broadcast program. Coach Gary Gaines, in the movie “Friday Night Lights” has a speech called “Being Perfect”. “Being Perfect” is a very powerful, emotional, and motivating speech. This speech is not your normal locker room speech. “Being Perfect’s” purpose is to inform the players and others that it doesn't take much just to feel good about yourself.

Neil Gaiman once said, “The current total of countries in the world with First Amendments is one. You have guaranteed the freedom of speech. Other countries don’t have that.” At the time of the amendments’ creation, a vast majority of operating countries had not yet granted their people such freedoms. Granting every citizen of the United States this right seemed to have been an important landmark in this nation’s history. Along with others, this right is declared to the people in the first amendment of the constitution. The first amendment is the most important because it grants people freedom of speech, prohibits prior restraint, and declares the right to peaceable assembly.

Harvard Speech Night Live Will Ferrell’s Harvard commencement speech on June 4th 2003 was a great speech due to its audience interaction and humor. The speech is great because it retains the audience’s attention the whole time whilst effectively conveying his message. The speech has a well-crafted formation and strong word choice. Will Ferrell used great care to make this speech really connect and be great. The three main tools Will Ferrell utilizes to make his speech effective are humor, audience participation, and creative language.

And then, instead of trying to silence her, you invite me here - and give me a microphone - to amplify our voice. That's the difference.”. In this speech, some groups of people feel

The voice of writers and authors are the key components to their inner thoughts. It is a way of actually portraying what a person is trying to say. However the case is that their words silenced and put in period of exile away from the eyes of the public. Author Charles Lawrence goes on to state that racist speech is wrong simply because of the drastic agony it puts on a victim’s perspective. In the article “On Racist Speech,” the author, Charles R Lawrence III, effectively establishes credibility, logic and emotional themes to supports his argument which infers that the use of harmful language should not be protected by the First Amendment Law in order to stop racism.

“I have opinions that, frankly, a lot of people are thinking. They just won't tell people. They don't pollsters. They don't tell journalists. But they think it” (Lieberman). These are the words of conservative blogger and self-proclaimed “provocateur,” Milo Yiannopoulos. Yiannopoulos had been scheduled to speak at the UC Berkeley campus, but given UC Berkeley Police Department’s security concerns surrounding his appearance, the event had been cancelled. Yiannopoulos argues that his First Amendment right had been violated and vows to return for a future event, “Free Speech Week.” Additionally, Ku Klux Klan activist Chris Cantwell has been invited to speak. The University argues that due to Yiannopoulos’ past doxing activities and the threat of violence associated with his presence, it is not required to accommodate such speech. In this memo, I will provide legal precedents arguing that 1) “Free Speech Week” should be permitted to proceed with or without Chris Cantwell, 2) the associated KKK rallies should be permitted to proceed, and 3) a counter-argument addressing the strengthening of civil disobedience.

So the need for more drastic, shock and awe type actions from people desiring to be heard on any particular matter has been brought to the forefront. This is where the Bill of Rights has drastically come into play. At this point the Supreme Court has to protect the freedoms without stripping Americans of their rights entirely but it also has to protect Americans from those who wish to do harm to others under the protection of freedom of speech or expression. Not only does the First Amendment provide for freedom of speech but also freedom of expression which is as equally controversial. By examining the First Amendment and the protections and exclusions it has provided over the years through three highly controversial cases, it will allow the reader some insight into the difficulties surrounding the protection of free speech. The cases that are to be examined are Snyder v. Phelps, Morse v. Frederick and Texas v. Johnson. All of these cases present a different freedom of speech or expression issue that was brought to the Supreme Court and therefore, set a standard for future rulings regarding that particular issue.

This year’s election alone has brought about many emotions and deep rooted feelings that have not come out in years. Hate speech and actions carried out because of hate speech has cause a deep division in American culture. Groups like “Black Lives Matter”, “All Lives Matter”, and “Alt-Right” are all under fire for things that have been said or done in the names of these groups. There has been terrorist attacks in the names of religious groups whom believe that a newspaper or group has insulted their religion, beliefs, and gods. Not to mention our own President Elect of the United States, Donald Trump, has been accused of fueling much of the hate speech we see today. This begs the question, should freedom of speech have any restrictions or be limited in any way, or is that unconstitutional? To look at this we must first identify what “Freedom of Speech” is as defined in the constitution and how it relates to current issues in the world and in America, then I will talk about some situations where regulation is already put in place in America, lastly we will look at some situations where I believe freedom of speech could use some clarification or restriction.

As we know, living is not an easy process, and several times in our lives, we have to face with depressed situations. Because there is an important point is that all of us are flawed. We all are going to fail now and then. For this reason Daniel Levitin has given us an idea is to think ahead to what those failures might be, and that will help us to minimize the damage, or to prevent the bad things if we are under the circumstances. In his speech, we have told a desperate situation when he has stood in a freezing midnight, and his disaster flight. He explained about cortisol, a substance in our brains which causes our thinking cloudy, or affect to functions of the Hippocampus. Not only he explained the consequences of stress, but also he gave

Walk into a library, you have a computer, you are most likely carrying a phone, at home, you most likely have a computer, laptop, tablet, or even all three. This shows that we have social media access at the tip of our fingers, making it so easy to open up the site or app and just type out a phrase or paragraph, letting hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions, of people know what you think. Back then, it was harder to let the nation know what you were thinking, and it took even take months before everyone knew, versus today, where the nation might know by the end of the day, and it’s because of this that companies regulate what their users are posting, attempting at keeping the online world free from threats, hate, harmful words, and more. Rutenberg quotes Jeffrey Goldberg as he says, “At a certain point I’d rather take myself off the platform where speech has become so become so offensive than advocate for the suppression of that speech” (2). Twitter also said that “everyone on Twitter should feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs, but behavior that harasses, intimidates or uses fear to silence another person’s voice should have no place on our platform” (Rutenberg 2).