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]
Civil discourse is the practice of deliberating about matters of public concern in a way that seeks to expand knowledge and promote understanding. The word "civil" relates directly to civic in the sense of being oriented toward public life, [1] [2] and less directly to civility, in the sense of mere politeness.
Symbolic speech is a legal term in United States law used to describe actions that purposefully and discernibly convey a particular message or statement to those viewing it. [1] Symbolic speech is recognized as being protected under the First Amendment as a form of speech, but this is not expressly written as such in the document.
Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky comment in their book Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of the Mass Media that Orwellian doublespeak is an important component of the manipulation of the English language in American media, through a process called dichotomization, a component of media propaganda involving "deeply embedded double standards in the reporting of news."
Both the NRA case and the social media case reaffirm that the speech of government officials violates the 1st Amendment only if it is coercive and only if it can be proven to cause harm.
For example, according to evolutionary psychology, coalitional aggression is more commonly found in males. This is because of their psychological mechanism designed since ancestral times. During those times men had more to earn when winning wars compared to women (they had more chance of finding a mate, or even many mates).
White PSYOP is attributable to PSYOP as a source. White is acknowledged as an official statement or act of the U.S. government, or emanates from a source associated closely enough with the U.S. government to reflect an official viewpoint. The information should be true and factual.
The legal rule itself – how to apply this exception – is complicated, as it is often dependent on who said the statement and which actor it was directed towards. [6] The analysis is thus different if the government or a public figure is the target of the false statement (where the speech may get more protection) than a private individual who is being attacked over a matter of their private ...