Alignment, persuasiveness and the putative reader in opinion writing

This paper explores a new line of analysis for comparing opinion writing by reference to differences in the relationships being indicated between author and addressee. It draws on recent work within the appraisal framework literature to offer proposals for linguistics-based analyses of what has variously been termed the ‘intended’, ‘imagined’, ‘ideal’, ‘virtual’, ‘model’, ‘implied’ and ‘putative’ reader (the ‘reader written into the text’). A discussion is provided of those means by which beliefs, attitudes and expectations are projected onto this ‘reader in the text’, formulations which signal anticipations that the reader either shares the attitude or belief currently being advanced by the author, potentially finds it novel or otherwise problematic, or may reject it outright. The discussion is conducted with respect to written, persuasive texts, and specifically with respect to news journalism’s commentary pieces. It is proposed that such texts can usefully be characterised and compared by reference to tendencies in such ‘construals’ or ‘positionings’ of the putative reader – tendencies in terms of whether the signalled anticipation is of the reader being aligned or, conversely, potentially unaligned or dis-aligned with the author. The terms ‘flag waving’ and ‘advocacy’ are proposed as characterisations which can be applied to texts, with ‘flag waving’ applicable to texts which construe the reader as largely sharing the author’s beliefs and attitudes, while ‘advocacy’ is applicable to texts where the reader is construed as actually or potentially not sharing the author’s beliefs and attitudes and thereby needing to be won over. This line of analysis is demonstrated through a comparison of two journalistic opinion pieces written in response to visits by Japanese politicians to the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, one published in the English-language version of the mainland China newspaper, China Daily and one in the English-language version of the Japanese Asahi Shimbun. It is shown that one piece can usefully be characterised as oriented towards ‘flag waving’ and the other towards ‘advocacy’.

Sanksi Pidana Terhadap Ujaran Kebencian (Hate Speech)

Hate speech in daily life people now such as expression, sedition, and provocation hate to other people and other community in many aspect such as religion, sex orientation, disabled, gender, racial , skin color, nationality and many else. If hate speech didn’t handle with effective way, efficient, and handle with corresponding with the valid law, so it can be impact social conflict that can increase discrimination action, violence and death loss. In this case there will be a bad impact which so danger for the hate speech victim, so in this case the writer’s get two solution to handle hate speech, that are protection law of hate speech victims and punishment criminal for the people who does hate speech. In this legal opinion writing, I am as a writer use normative method. In my experience, I do problem approach constitution which has related with hate speech, and then this research material reviewed. The result of this research is about law protective for the hate speech victims so that achievement can be protect them and the hate speech victims can feels safe. Hate speech can be says of criminal act because of what they have been done to hate speech victims. Unlawful actions that have been done with on propose or accidentally must be accounted for the acts that consist of constitution that happened and stated as acts that can be get a punishment in jail or fine. Ujaran kebencian dalam kehidupan manusia saat ini yang berupa ungkapan, hasutan, dan provokasi kebencian kepada seseorang atau suatu kelompok lain, dalam hal berbagai aspek berupa, agama, cacat, orientasi seksual, gender, ras, warna kulit, kewarganegaraan, dan lain-lain. Jika hate speech tidak di tangani dengan efektif, efesien dan ditangani sesuai hukum yang berlaku, bisa menimbulkan suatu dampak konflik sosial yang bisa memicu tindak diskriminasi, kekerasan dan atau penghilangan nyawa. Dengan timbulnya dampak yang sangat membahayakan bagi korban hate speech, maka penulis mendapatkan dua rumusan masalah dalam menangani hate speech yaitu, perlindungan hukum bagi korban hate speech dan sanksi pidana bagi pelaku hate speech. Penelitian ini mengunakan metode penulisan normative dan menggunakan pendekatan permasalahan perundang-undangan yang berkaitan dengan hate speech Kemudian bahan penelitian di kaji. Hasil dari penelitian berupa perlindungan hukum bagi korban hate speech supaya tercapainya rasa aman dan dapat melindungi bagi mereka yang menjadi korban hate speech. Hate speech dapat dikatakan sebagai tindak pidana karena telah melakukan suatu Tindakan melawan hukum yang dilakukan dengan sengaja ataupun dengan tidak sengaja harus dipertanggungkawabkan atas tindakannnya berdasarkan undang-undang yang berlaku dan dinyatakan sebagai tindakan yang dapat dihukum kurungan atau denda.

“The Painful Duty of This Tribunal”

The emergence of McCulloch v. Maryland as a foundational case of constitutional law stemmed from several factors, each coming together on its own separate timeline, converging on the years 1895 to 1901. These factors included the personal interest in John Marshall’s jurisprudence held by Supreme Court justices John Marshall Harlan and Horace Gray; the emergence of an autonomous legal profession; the related transition from the Grand Style to a common-law style in constitutional opinion writing; the publication of Harvard Professor James Bradley Thayer’s first-ever constitutional law casebook; and the conservative judicial reaction against the Populist movement. Marshall was canonized in a 1901 “John Marshall Day” centennial celebration consisting of conservative and backward-looking speeches that used Marshall as a symbol to validate conservative judicial activism and laissez-faire jurisprudence.