scholarly journals Language, Sexism and Misogyny The Reception of Women’s Political Speech

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah Cameron
Keyword(s):  
Hate Speech ◽  
Feminist Perspective ◽  
Political Speech ◽  
Public Speech ◽  
Representational Practices ◽  
Political Function ◽  
Female Politicians ◽  
Legal Sense

This paper examines linguistic sexism and misogyny in the light of the philosopher Kate Manne’s recent proposals regarding the general definitions of these concepts and their relationship. Using the reception of female politicians’ speech as an illustration, it argues that misogyny can be expressed through a range of interactional and representational practices; many of these would not amount to ‘hate speech’ in the legal sense, but that does not mean they are innocuous. From a feminist perspective linguistic misogyny, together with sexism, can most usefully be understood as fulfilling an important political function in patriarchal societies: policing women’s public speech and undermining their claims to authority.

scholarly journals Hate crimes: American and Balkan experience

Temida ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 21-36
Author(s):  
Jovan Ciric
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Minority ◽  
Black People ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Hate Crimes ◽  
Police Force ◽  
Young Population ◽  
The South ◽  
Legal Intervention ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Legal Sense

In the nineties of the last century it was noticed in the U.S.A. that suddenly the number of crimes with violence in the inter-racial and inter-ethnical conflicts rose. Also the phenomenon of ignition of churches, religious and sacral objects, especially in the south of the U.S.A., objects which were used by black people, was recorded. Directly in relation to that - the term ?hate crimes? then arose in science and became outspread very quickly, primarily in criminology. Several events, and above all the murder of a young homosexual in Wyoming influenced for both the violence and the crimes commited towards the homosexuals and all due to the prejudices towards this sexual minority to be included in this term. Today, this term is used not only in the U.S.A. and not only in a criminological sense, but also in a purely legal sense to denote the crimes which were carried out under the influence of hate towards a correspondent racial, ethnical or sexual minority. This term is linked also to the terminology and thus the problems which are related to the ?hate speech?. The author of this paper writes about how this term arose in the first place and which problems emerge related to hate crimes and primarily in relation to the issues of expansion of democracy and tolerance, and also education, primarily among the police force and the young population. The author also ascertains that only with the law, no great effects in the battle against this phenomenon can be achieved and that before the criminal-legal intervention some other measures have to be approached, like the creation of an atmosphere of tolerance and the education of the citizens about the phenomenon of hate crimes.

Political Offences and Speech Crimes

2018 ◽  
pp. 28-72
Author(s):  
Anushka Singh
Keyword(s):  
Hate Speech ◽  
Speech Act ◽  
Political Speech ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Legal Regimes ◽  
Conventional Paradigm

The first chapter is a comparative chapter on four legal regimes namely England, USA, Australia, and India dealing with political offences and speech crimes. The chapter analyses two particular paradigms to study the existence of sedition as an offence: first, the conventional paradigm of ‘violence as a physical act of force’ and second, the non-conventional paradigm of ‘violence through words’. Within the first paradigm, sedition is compared with the allied political offences of (a) treason, (b) incitement to disaffection/violence/overthrow, and (c) political conspiracies. Within the second paradigm, sedition is compared with four speech crimes, (a) personal libel, (b) hate speech, (c) blasphemy, and (d) pornography. Both levels of comparison offer deductions about specificity of sedition as a political speech act creating a discord within the value framework of liberal democracies.

Xenophobia, misogyny and rape culture

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Kopytowska
Keyword(s):  
Hate Speech ◽  
Migration Policy ◽  
Rape Culture ◽  
Female Politicians ◽  
Angela Merkel ◽  
The Media ◽  
And Migration ◽  
Data Wise ◽  
Technological Affordances ◽  
Racial Ethnic

Abstract The present article explores the interface between online misogyny and xenophobia in the context of both socio-cultural factors which are conducive to verbal aggression against women and cyberspace’s technological affordances. The former, as will be argued, can be linked to “rape culture”, where the notion of rape and sexual violence are used not only as instruments of subjugation and domination, but also as tools to legitimize racial, ethnic, or religious hatred. In the case of the latter, anonymity, interactivity and connectivity will be discussed as factors which facilitate generating, amplifying and perpetuating hateful and aggressive content online. Applying the Media Proximization Approach (Kopytowska 2013, 2015a, 2018a, 2018b; forthcoming) and drawing on previous research examining online xenophobic discourses and hate speech, the article scrutinizes hate speech targeting female politicians, namely Angela Merkel, current Chancellor of Germany, and Ewa Kopacz, former Polish Prime Minister, for their pro-refugee stance and migration policy. Data-wise, the examples analyzed will be taken from the corpora comprising comments following online articles in niezalezna.pl (a Polish conservative news portal) and YouTube videos on migrants and refugees.

Big tech's anti-Trump activism to have limited impact

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Public Speech ◽  
Content Type ◽  
White House ◽  
Media Companies ◽  
Capitol Hill ◽  
Democratic Control ◽  
Media Firms

Significance Facebook has indefinitely suspended Trump from its main platform and Instagram, while Twitter has done so permanently for his role in instigating violence at US Capitol Hill on January 6. These developments spotlight the role of social media firms in spreading and tackling hate speech and disinformation, and their power unilaterally to shut down public speech. Impacts Democratic control of the White House and Congress offers social media companies a two-year window to ensure softer regulation. The EU will push its new digital markets legislation with vigour following the events at US Capitol Hill. Hard-right social media will find new firms willing to host their servers, partly because their user numbers run to millions not billions.

Response to “Discourse over a contested technology on Twitter: A case study of hydraulic fracturing”—Word choice as political speech

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Grubert
Keyword(s):  
Hydraulic Fracturing ◽  
Public Understanding Of Science ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Word Choice ◽  
Political Speech ◽  
Public Speech ◽  
Fracturing Process ◽  
Understanding Of Science

Hopke and Simis ( Public Understanding of Science, online 4 October 2015) find that #fracking, the most popular of five shale-related hashtags analyzed from a 2013 period, is associated with pro-shale attitudes only 13% of the time and note that the dominant voice of the activist community, coupled with a lack of engagement from industry, is unexpected. This comment offers additional perspective on the sentiment- and actor-skewed result by noting that the term “fracking” is highly political, specifically because the spelling “frack” versus “frac” is associated with activism. Furthermore, in public speech, the industry tends to deemphasize the hydraulic fracturing process in favor of the product, consistent with the findings that #natgas is a relatively pro-industry hashtag.

scholarly journals Democratic legitimacy, political speech and viewpoint neutrality

2020 ◽  
pp. 019145372093190
Author(s):  
Kristian Skagen Ekeli
Keyword(s):  
Public Discourse ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Negative Answer ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Political Speech ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Moral Wrong ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Moral Environment ◽  
Civil Libertarian

The purpose of this article is to consider the question of whether democratic legitimacy requires viewpoint neutrality with regard to political speech – including extremist political speech, such as hate speech. The starting point of my discussion is Jeremy Waldron’s negative answer to this question. He argues that it is permissible for liberal democracies to ban certain extremist viewpoints – such as vituperative hate speech – because such viewpoint-based restrictions protect the dignity of persons and a social and moral environment of mutual respect. According to Waldron, well-drafted narrow hate speech bans are not democratically illegitimate, and they do not undermine systemic democratic legitimacy – that is, the legitimacy of a democratic political system. In contrast to Waldron, I will argue that democratic legitimacy requires viewpoint neutrality to respect persons as thinking agents. I will defend a civil libertarian doctrine of viewpoint neutrality, and this doctrine requires that citizens in liberal democracies ought to have a legal free speech right to do moral wrong – that is, a legal right to express and defend any political viewpoint or idea, even if it is morally wrong to express, or expose others to, such views. It will be argued that any viewpoint-based restriction on public discourse (including narrow hate speech bans) is democratically illegitimate, and that such restrictions undermine systemic democratic legitimacy.

scholarly journals Communicative Strategies in Political Speech of Donald Trump

2020 ◽  
pp. 131-141
Author(s):  
Maryna Darchuk
Keyword(s):  
Political Discourse ◽  
Communication Process ◽  
The Political ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Political Speech ◽  
Public Speech ◽  
Communicative Strategies ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Communicative Act ◽  
Communicative Strategy

The article deals with the linguistic and communicative peculiarities of the political discourse of Donald Trump, a presidential candidate in the USA. The focus is on the communicative strategies and tactics, used by the politician in his speech during the election campaign. The attention is paid to language means through which a particular communicative strategy or tactic is realized. Each communicative strategy is seen as a combination of language actions aimed at solving the general communicative task of a speaker. The achievement of such a task is possible only by using certain communication tactics. The strategy intends a combination of speech actions whereas a tactic describes peculiar speech actions that aim to influence listeners at a certain stage of communication. Tactics are dynamic, their change happens promptly throughout the communication process, which provides the flexibility of the chosen strategy. The usage of communicative strategies and tactics depends on the type of discourse. Political discourse is defined as a communicative act in which participants give specific meanings to facts and influence and persuade the listeners. Political speech is a public speech that is addressed to the audience in order to demonstrate the leadership of the speaker and influence the listeners. Communicative strategies used in political speech aim at the realization of the final aim of communication. They are focused on the future and are connected with the forecasting of the situation, that is why their sources should be searched in motives that determine human activity. Donald Trump's goal is to persuade the listeners to vote for him, that is why he delivers his speech using various communicative strategies that increase his chances of winning.

scholarly journals Constructing women’s “different voice”

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 144-159
Author(s):  
Deborah Cameron ◽  
Sylvia Shaw
Keyword(s):  
General Election ◽  
Election Campaign ◽  
Political Speech ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Public Figures ◽  
Female Politicians ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Since the 1990s, media commentators in the UK and elsewhere have praised women for introducing a “visibly different style of politics”, one symbol of which is the alleged preference of female politicians for a less adversarial and more co-operative style of political speech. Drawing on an analysis of the 2015 UK General Election campaign, we argue that this notion of women’s “different voice” has become increasingly central to the media’s construction of prominent female politicians as public figures, despite the evidence that it does not reflect any clear-cut pattern of differentiation between male and female political speakers of equivalent status and experience. Though it may seem to be an advance on previous negative representations of female politicians, we suggest that it reproduces – albeit in a “modernized” form – the long-established tendency of the media to evaluate women in relation to gendered norms and expectations, while men are judged as individuals.

scholarly journals Gender Differences in Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s Political Speech

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dwi Mahartika ◽  
Ridwan Hanafiah
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Gender Differences ◽  
Factual Information ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Political Speech ◽  
Political Field ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Self Confidence ◽  
Female Politicians ◽  
Descriptive Qualitative

The objective of this study were to describe the ways of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton deliver speech in political field, to derive the characteristics of male and female’s poitical speech and to elaborate the reason of male and female politicians deliver their political speech. This researh conducted by applying descriptive qualitative research. The data of this study were 92 utterances of male politician and 51 utterances of female politician. Which were selected from male and female politicians’ presidential announcement speech in United States from year 2015. The findings showed that male and female politicians used both report and rapport talk in delivering their speech. Male mostly used report talk than rapport talk in show his self confidence and his status, and used rapport talk to gain relationship with other to gain support while female combine the both talk types in almost same amounts tend to imitate male speech behavior in order to defend her status and gain relationship with others. Male politician frequently show the characteristics of male communication, such as: status, independence, advice,information, and order in his way of delivering speech. While, female politician showed her support, intimacy, understanding, feeling, proposal in her speech. The reason why male politician used report talk whereas female politician used rapport talk is because male treats the language to give factual information, tease or thread other and show or keep his status and power, whereas female did it as a way to negotiate closeness and intimacy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document