| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "FAMOUS SPEECHES": |
|
|
Hate Speeches: The Right to Freedom of Speech, 2001.
A look at freedom of speech with respect to 'hate' speeches' and whether or not these speeches are protected under the First Amendment.
1,168 words (approx. 4.7 pages), 5 sources, £ 22.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this paper the author argues that ?hate speeches?, however abhorrent, should be protected by the U.S. Constitution, that in the interest of free speech, they should be allowed. He suggests that this is synonymous with American freedom and refers to some specific examples in order to assess whether hate speeches should be protected under the First Amendment. The author contends that as long as we are free to judge the importance of what is being said for ourselves, then words should never be banned.
From the paper:
?Words are serious, not because they have any direct effect in their own right, but because words, and the ideas they express, are what we use to weigh up our own decisions, their likely effects, and our responsibilities. Words have consequences only if we choose to give them consequences.?
| |
|
Gay Speech, not Hate Speech, 2008.
A discussion on the use of word forms specifically constructed for recognition by gay and lesbian groups.
1,041 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 4 sources, APA, £ 20.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper illustrates how language serves a purpose to the gay and lesbian community to assist them in recognizing themselves as a group in a world of opposition and ridicule of their status. The paper quotes several words and descriptively explains how the word is utilized in gay society. The paper then summarizes the situation with examples on how language has been used negatively with the resultant necessity for this group to formulate their own vocabulary.
From the Paper
"This usage appears to have grown out of political activism. The need to combat homophobic oppression - including internalized homophobia - was perceived, and a concrete way of doing this was to hold a public parade in which pride in one's alternative sexual orientation was expressed. Out of this activity, the word "pride" acquired a whole new meaning - a meaning that is useful for this community in overcoming the societal prejudices it has to deal with."
| |
|
Medea's Speeches, 2004.
An analysis of the speeches made by Medea in the play of the same name by Euripides.
1,278 words (approx. 5.1 pages), 0 sources, £ 24.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Over the course of Euripides?s play, "Medea", the protagonist makes five truly significant speeches, which seem to provide the outline for the plot. This paper explains how, in these speeches, Medea addresses the audience or the chorus of women, among whom she seeks a measure of justification and self-understanding. It discusses how, from the beginning, her motivation and determination in destroying Jason?s new family is obvious. However, her thoughts regarding the death of her own children seem to vacillate throughout the work. The writer points out that, over the course of these speeches, one sees the development of her revenge, the careful strategic outlay of her plans, and steady struggle with her maternal instincts. It also shows how her womanly desire for revenge and the desire to shelter her children from a harsh reality are portrayed in these speeches.
From the Paper
"When we first see Medea enter the play, she is hysterical in grief. At that moment, she speaks of hating her children, saying ?Children of a hateful mother, I curse you / And you father. Let the whole house crash.? (112-113) Of course at the same time she speaks of killing herself as well, so one might chalk these murderous sentiments up to hyperbole. However, these words are significant for two particular reasons -- first that this mad grief belies her later philosophical resignation in speaking with the chorus, and secondly that this is the only time in the course of the play that Medea is ever shown as hating her children or failing to care about them. Here the poet seems to be suggesting that Medea?s later murder is driven by hatred, but throughout the remainder of the play and in all of the significant speeches she seems to be far more concerned with the welfare of her children than one might expect."
| |
|
Inspirational Speeches, 2001.
Analyzes Hillary Rodham Clinton's '1997 speech to wives of Heads of State of governments of the Americas, & a commencement address delivered by the Dalai Lama. Primary purposes, styles of speeches, use of emotion, reason & parallel construction.
2,250 words (approx. 9.0 pages), 6 sources, £ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Seventh Conference of the Wives of Heads of State and Governments of the Americas"
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Setting
The setting is a meeting at the Seventh Conference of the Wives of Heads of State and Governments of the Americas in Panama City, Panama. This was held on October 10, 1997.
The speaker is Hillary Rodham Clinton, wife of President Clinton of the United States. As the representative of the United States at the conference, her words would have been of particular interest to the other countries of the hemisphere. She speaks primarily not to politicians but to their wives, and her message is tailored to what she presumes are their interests in protecting women, children, and families. The speech as given..."
| |
|
Speeches, 2004.
A comparison of two of the most famous speeches in history, Thomas Jefferson?s ?Declaration of Independence? and Martin Luther King?s ?I Have a Dream?.
858 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 4 sources, MLA, £ 16.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses two famous speeches in the United States calling for freedom: Thomas Jefferson's ?Declaration of Independence? and Martin Luther King?s ?I Have a Dream?. The paper compares the two speeches from a structural point of view and describes the differing content. The paper explains the different audiences targeted by each speech.
From the Paper
"The intended audience affected how each man wrote his statement. Jefferson used elaborately structured language, because his message was to the upper class and royalty of England. For instance, his opening sentence starts, ?When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another ...?. This sentence contains seventy-one words. By comparison, King?s audience was the entire United States. His opening sentence is only seventeen words and immediately refers to the main issue directly by mentioning the Emancipation Proclamation. Jefferson?s speech continues with complex vocabulary and extremely long sentences, while King? speech is almost like poetry in some places, creating clear images and using language that is easy to understand and to listen to. This is why we call it the ?I have a dream? speech. That simple sentence resonates in the speech and communicates his intent very clearly."
| |
|
The Speeches of Jesus and Stephen in the "Book of Luke", 2000.
Comparison and analysis of the speeches of Jesus and Stephen in the "Book of Luke".
1,450 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 2 sources, £ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents a comparison and rhetorical analysis of the speeches of Jesus and Stephen which shows that the purpose of both speeches harmonizes, but their structures differ to some degree.
From the Paper
"Typical of Greco-Roman literature of the history genre, Luke fills approximately one fourth of his books with speeches. Like other Greco-Roman historians, Luke could not have actually heard the speeches that he recorded, nor could he even accurately know the contents of such speeches, if they occurred. Indeed, Luke writes more than 50 years after the death of Jesus; not only is Luke not contemporary to the events that he records as if he were immediately physically present, but most others contemporary to the event, potential eye-witnesses, are also dead (Ehrman 44). Luke, therefore, contrived the text of the speeches presented in Luke-Acts; in his capacity as a historian, Luke strove for a sense of verisimilitude. Thus, the speeches recorded in Luke-Acts, written to reflect Luke?s estimation of the character of the speaker and the occasion, reveal Luke?s literary purpose as much as they reveal actual historical information. Jesus? speech in the Nazarene synagogue, as well as Stephen?s speech before the Sanhedrin, serve to advance Luke?s perception of Jesus: the rejected prophet. Luke implicitly compares Stephen to Jesus to validate the mission to the Gentiles, which had become the focus of the Apostles. The speeches of Jesus and Stephen do differ, in certain respects, in structure. However, the purposes of each speech ultimately harmonize; Luke employs different structures for disparate actors to achieve a common function."
| |
|
Speeches Compared, 2002.
Compares two speeches by great men: Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" and John Winthrop's "A Model of Christian Charity".
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 4 sources, £ 19.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares and contrasts Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech and John Winthrop's sermon "A Model of Christian Charity." King's speech was the keynote address at the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. It stressed nonviolence as a tactic to end of racism. Winthrop's sermon was given while en route to the New World on board the Arabella. The speech outlined the purposes of God for New England.
| |
|
Memorable Speeches, 2002.
Discusses what makes a successful speech by examining those made by Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Jennifer Breuer and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
4,077 words (approx. 16.3 pages), 6 sources, APA, £ 61.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper begins by comparing speeches by civil rights activists Martin Luther King, Jr ("I Have a Dream") and Malcolm X (?The Ballot or the Bullet?). It explains and compares the differences in tones, use of imagery and other techniques which made these two speeches so memorable. The paper then analyzes "Dying To Be Thin" by Jennifer Breuer to give an example of a speech which is more clinical and informative in nature. Women's rights activist, Elizabeth Cady Stanton's speech ?The Declaration of Sentiments?, given at the 1848 Seneca Falls Conference is then discussed as an example of a combination of learning, education, experience, eloquence and passion.
From the Paper
"With this shift in language, and thus shift in perspective, Stanton makes a radical statement about the equality of women to men in the public sphere. This was something that most Americans in the middle of the 19th century did not believe (or had not considered). To be an effective advocate for her cause, Stanton had both to reveal and to conceal the truly radical nature of her ideas. By phrasing her analysis of women?s rights in terms of the Declaration of Independence, Stanton was (implicitly) arguing that what she was arguing for was not radical, was simply a natural and even necessary extension of the rights of all and any Americans that the Revolutionary War had been fought to gain. But, by phrasing her analysis of women?s rights in terms of the Declaration of Independence, Stanton was also (implicitly) arguing that her demands were as radical and as morally right as those demands made by the colonists to King George."
| |
|
WWI Speeches: President Woodrow Wilson and Eugene Debs, 2002.
This paper presents two opposing points of view about America?s entry into WWI. One, by President Woodrow Wilson, was heralded and the other, by labor agitator Eugene Debs, who was imprisoned because of the speech.
1,000 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 3 sources, MLA, £ 19.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses that both President Woodrow Wilson and labor agitator Eugene Debs made important speeches as WWI began. However, the law was not as tolerant of free speech then as it is today. The paper reports that Wilson, in his speech to Congress, emphasized that he was not seeking revenge even though Germany was attacking American ships, but rather saw America's entry into the war as a means of defense; armed neutrality was no longer possible. The author explains that Eugene Debs, Socialist Party candidate for president, made his speech to a group of working people, opposing the war and claimed it was just one more example of the way the working class is exploited by the capitalist. He was imprisoned for this speech.
From the Paper
"Wilson is also clear about what this move will involve--the need for funding, the need to gather large numbers of troops, the need to organize the resources of the country, the need to get the people to support the war, and so on. He is taking the first step by gaining the support of Congress, after which he and members of Congress will have to garner support from the public. Wilson goes into other aspects of his decision that he believes are important, such as indicating that the war is with the leaders of Germany and not the German people, that the primary concern is for peace, and that this is the beginning of a new age. Interestingly, he also points to the Russian Revolution, then only a few weeks old, as evidence of a new democratic spirit, showing either that the Russian Revolution changed directions after this or that Wilson misperceived what was taking place there."
| |
|
Policy Speeches, 2002.
A study of various policy speeches to see how they are similar.
650 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 3 sources, £ 14.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the similarities and differences in the State of the Union, State of the State, and State of the City addresses of President Bush, Governor Pataki, and Mayor Bloomberg.
| |
|
The Speeches of Antony and Brutus, 2001.
Examines the differences in Antony and Brutus' speech styles and effectiveness in "Julius Caesar".
1,430 words (approx. 5.7 pages), 1 source, £ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This is a paper comparing and contrasting the two major speeches of Marcus Brutus and Antony in William Shakespeare?s "Julius Caesar". The author makes several interesting points and discusses how Antony ?s method of toying with the audience?s emotions prevailed over Brutus? attempt to use the audience?s pride and patriotism.
From the Paper
"Great speakers are remembered throughout history for making speeches that touch the audience, or get the audience to believe something that before seemed like nonsense. People like Martin Luther King Junior and Abraham Lincoln changed history, and are remembered to this day for their historic speeches. In William Shakespeare?s play, Julius Caesar, two such speeches were made. In the play, both Marcus Brutus and Antony made speeches that moved the crowd, but they used different techniques to accomplish their goals. Brutus? and Antony ?s speeches differed vastly in their emphasis, content, and writing style."
| |
|
Health Care and Political Speeches, 1994.
A look at the ussue background and a rhetorical analysis of two 1994 addresses by Republican Senator Robert Dole and Democratic Senator George Mitchell on health care reform.
2,700 words (approx. 10.8 pages), 5 sources, £ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Speeches by Robert Dole and George J. Mitchell, respectively the leaders of the minority Republican and majority Democratic parties in the United States Senate, will serve as examples of rhetorical situations for purposes of comparison. The speeches are both on the same subject, health care reform legislation, and both were delivered before the United States Senate on the same day, August 9, 1994. The speeches were both n response to two things--the general concern for health care reform that had been prevalent in the country for at least the previous year when President Clinton had placed the issue at the forefront of his legislative agenda, and the specific proposals that had been offered to Congress. The background of the health care debate will serve as an introduction to these two speeches offering different ideas about the debate and different views of the..."
| |
|
Boundaries of Free Speech, 2004.
A look at whether campus speech codes are the right way to address the problem of hate speech, or if such speech codes violate free speech to such a degree that they should not be adopted.
2,510 words (approx. 10.0 pages), 14 sources, MLA, £ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper asserts campus speech codes are the wrong way to address the problem of hate speech, especially because they exist in a academic setting where freedom of speech should be better understood. The paper concludes that curbing the speech of those who would curb our speech is never the answer. The only way to transform minds is to challenge the ideas behind the hate speech directly through dialogue.
From the Paper
"Americans value the freedom of speech assured them in the U.S. Constitution, but they also seem to accept that there are some boundaries to freedom of speech, though what those boundaries are is controversial and may shift over time. One issue of free speech today is described under the title "Political Correctness," or "PC." It is defined as efforts by certain political groups to enforce some form of speech code in order to control speech and ban any term or phrase that might be considered demeaning to any group in society, so-called "hate speech." One of the problems with these efforts is the vagueness of the terms used to define it--what is "demeaning," and how is it to be decided when a given phrase is demeaning or not? In his chapter, "Hate Speech, Free Speech, and the Unspoken," from the anthology Signs of Life, Richard Goldstein writes, The perception of crisis is why hate speech has become a divisive issue among progressives. The distressing force of the current backlash against hard-won minority rights creates a fundamental conflict between our commitment to free expression and our desire to protect and preserve the victims of abuse. The result is an aching uncertainty about where to draw the line. (412) The question, then, is whether campus speech codes are the right way to address the problem of hate speech, or if such speech codes violate free speech to such a degree that they should not be adopted."
| |
|
Hate Speech, 2004.
A look at interpretations of the First Amendment and how they affect the ongoing debate about free speech and hate speech.
3,987 words (approx. 15.9 pages), 9 sources, APA, £ 61.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the legal debate surrounding the issue of free speech and hate speech and how the First Amendment's implications regarding this topic lack clarity and, therefore, are subject to numerous interpretations. The paper also looks at how college campuses have attempted to handle the problem of hate speech, examines some Supreme Court rulings on hate speech and hate symbols, and includes an overview of arguments for and against the use of hate speech laws and codes.
Constitutionality of Hate-Speech Laws and Legislation
College Campus Hate-Speech Codes
Fighting Words; Hate Symbols
State Interest in Regulating Hate-Speech
Arguments for and Against Such Laws and Codes
First Amendment Protection of Unpopular or Offensive Speech
Sentence Enhancement for Bias Motivated Crimes
Supreme Court Handling of Hate-Speech and Hate Crime Issues
From the Paper
"Interpretations of the First Amendment are at the center of the legal debates about free speech and hate speech. Like many articles in the Constitution, the exact meaning of the first amendment and the implications it had for the founding fathers are unclear. It provides a general orientation for federal action, but just how it is to be made operational is open to discussion. The conclusion reached will depend on the overall interpretive framework one uses. These frameworks, in turn, will merge into one's political and social philosophy. For example, at the time of its adoption, many thoughtful people believed that government should not prohibit the publication of one's views but could and should punish some writers for the harmful effects of such publication. This view, while plausible, is not the dominant interpretation at the present time."
|
|
|
