Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
An apple a day keeps the doctor away; An army marches on its stomach; An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind (Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948), leader of the Indian independence movement) An Englishman's home is his castle/A man's home is his castle; Another day, another dollar; Another happy landing
Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech, and gossip. [ 77 ] [ 78 ] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive [ 76 ] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie"). [ 79 ]
The Conservative Political Action Conference has been the venue for some of former President Donald Trump’s most dishonest speeches – lengthy lie-filled addresses in which he has regaled ...
The difference between incitement and fighting words is subtle, focusing on the intent of the speaker. Inciting speech is characterized by the speaker's intent to make someone else the instrument of his or her unlawful will. Fighting words, by contrast, are intended to cause the hearer to react to the speaker. [20]
The days event's included speeches from the likes of John Lewis, a civil rights activist who currently serves as a U.S. congressman more than 50 years later, Mrs. Medgar Evers, whose husband had ...
Mineke Schipper is a Dutch scholar, best known for her book of worldwide proverbs about women, Never Marry a Woman with Big Feet – Women in Proverbs from Around the World. [392] Edward Zellem is an American proverb scholar who has edited books of Afghan proverbs, developed a method of collecting proverbs via the Web.
The government encouraging them to remove false speech only violates the 1st Amendment if it can be proved that the government caused, and will cause in the future, speech to be blocked.
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that speech made in a public place on a matter of public concern cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress, even if the speech is viewed as offensive or outrageous.