Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The government speech doctrine establishes that the government may advance its speech without requiring viewpoint neutrality when the government itself is the speaker. Thus, when the state is the speaker, it may make content based choices. The simple principle has broad implications, and has led to contentious disputes within the Supreme Court. [1]
The abstract syntactic relation of government in government and binding theory, a phrase structure grammar, is an extension of the traditional notion of case government. [2] Verbs govern their objects, and more generally, heads govern their dependents. A governs B if and only if: [3] A is a governor (a lexical head), A m-commands B, and
Also called the Blue Dog Democrats or simply the Blue Dogs. A caucus in the United States House of Representatives comprising members of the Democratic Party who identify as centrists or conservatives and profess an independence from the leadership of both major parties. The caucus is the modern development of a more informal grouping of relatively conservative Democrats in U.S. Congress ...
These decisions are especially important in the context of the internet and social media, where false speech is a huge problem. The government has few tools to deal with it. The court’s rulings ...
Panegyric – a formal public speech, delivered in high praise of a person or thing. Paradeigma – argument created by a list of examples that leads to a probable generalized idea. Paradiastole – redescription, usually in a better light. Paradox – an apparently absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition.
[44] [45] A common simplified definition of a republic is a government where the head of state is not a monarch. [46] [47] Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government. [48] These categories are not exclusive.
For much of the history of the positivist philosophy of language, language was viewed primarily as a way of making factual assertions, and the other uses of language tended to be ignored, as Austin states at the beginning of Lecture 1, "It was for too long the assumption of philosophers that the business of a 'statement' can only be to 'describe' some state of affairs, or to 'state some fact ...
In English, for example, the interrogative is supposed to indicate that the utterance is (intended as) a question; the directive indicates that the utterance is (intended as) a directive illocutionary act (an order, a request, etc.); the words "I promise" are supposed to indicate that the utterance is (intended as) a promise.