![]() Similarly, different techniques will be applied when communicating with teenagers as opposed to communicating with corporate leaders. Was the objective achieved? A speaker will need to use different techniques to connect with an audience of 1500 than they would with an audience of 15. What is the speaker’s goal? Is it to educate, to motivate, to persuade, or to entertain? What is the primary message being delivered? Why is this person delivering this speech? Are they the right person? This post was done with the help of. Knowing the speaker’s objective is critical to analyzing the speech, and should certainly influence how you study it. These questions also apply when you conduct a self evaluation of your own speeches. Ask these questions whether you attend the presentation, or whether you view a video or read the speech text. The first in the series, this article outlines questions to ask yourself when assessing a presentation. Later articles will examine Toastmasters evaluation contests and speech evaluation forms and resources. You will learn how to study a speech and how to deliver an effective speech evaluation. The Speech Analysis Series is a series of articles examining different aspects of presentation analysis. The ability to analyze a speech will accelerate the growth of any speaker. Such circulation raises additional questions about how speech harms-how, that is, harm is embodied and felt-particularly when a group is both the source and target of hate speech, or when hateful speech targets membership across lines of religious, racial, ethnic, sexual or other social difference.Studying other speakers is a critical skill, one of the 25 essential skills for a public speaker. What political conditions have emerged to make such a shift possible, and what obstacles persist in classifying anti-Muslim claims as hate speech? How does the jurisprudence on these issues vary within and across national courts as compared to supranational tribunals? When courts advocate or uphold legal interpretations contrary to majority public opinion, how is that fissure experienced among the targets of hate speech? Under what conditions do individuals and communities targeted by hate speech become litigious, and how are disagreements among them about what constitutes harm resolved? Might we conceive of hate speech jurisprudence as an emerging arena for political competition?Īs the forum contributors show, the migration of hate speech into the political mainstream through social media and other digital platforms, as well as the burgeoning genre of alarmist writing, not only makes speech of this kind more difficult to regulate, but also transforms the standards by which what qualifies as hateful speech are determined. Several contributors to this forum further consider whether the reluctance to view anti-Muslim speech as hate speech is now changing. Such anxieties concern-among other circumstances-the competition over finite economic resources, bids for electoral office, increasing rates of immigration, and fear of civilizational decline. Indeed, whether a society has a longstanding tradition of regulating hate speech or has only recently inaugurated regulatory controls, anxieties surrounding the presence and influence of allegedly heterodox beliefs, communities, and values undergird legal innovation in this area. Just as significantly, these contributions account for the conditions under which such debates emerge. Their essays engage protracted debates over whether religious beliefs, sacred symbols, or venerated persons should be protected from criticism or insult. ![]() ![]() Scholars from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds were invited to consider the ways in which the legal distinction between belief and believer is negotiated socially and jurisprudentially across a range of contemporary political contexts. What are the implications of this distinction today, at a time when vitriolic speech pervades political discourse? How might scholars nuance prevailing understandings of the new free speech environment in North America and Europe through comparative analysis? And what of contexts beyond these two geographies? How global has this environment become? Even more, criticism of individual or group beliefs or practices is seen not only as within an individual’s right to free expression, but necessary for maintaining a liberal public sphere. Whereas an attack on a religious group, if deemed sufficiently hateful or extreme, is often a punishable offense, an attack on a group’s beliefs is typically considered allowable speech. ![]() The adjudication of hate speech involving religion across North America and Europe hinges on the legal distinction between attacks on a religious group and attacks on a group’s beliefs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |