Example collocations logo

Speech in sentence

2069 examples of Speech in a sentence

Sub-Prime Economic TheoryThe insistence that those responsible for today’s financial crisis pay a price lest they repeat their mistakes – the so called moral hazard argument – recalls the great American orator William Jennings Bryan’s immortal “cross of gold” speech: “You shall not press down upon the brow of labor a crown of thorns.
Many observers were shocked by his statements, and took the speech as evidence of his insecurity or irrationality.
The Arab peoples must see clearly that the EU and the US genuinely intend to sustain Arabs’ demands for democracy, freedom of speech, and economic opportunity.
The US, or Obama at any rate, seems to be moving in the right direction, despite the round of applause that greeted Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s uncompromising speech before the US Congress last spring.
Integral to this freedom is the right to spend money to disseminate speech.
Any limitation on spending is a limitation on freedom of speech itself.
The first is inertia, combined with (or disguised as) idealism – the mistaken idea that the Internet should be free not just for speech, but also from payment.
Moreover, Anwar’s daughter has now been detained for questioning the integrity of her father’s trial in a speech in the Malay parliament, in which she is an elected member in her own right.
As Winston Churchill declared in his famous 1946 speech in Zurich, “We cannot afford to drag forward across the years that are to come the hatreds and revenges which have sprung from the injuries of the past.”
And the rhetoric – at least from one side – has come to resemble that of Winston Churchill’s 1946 “Iron Curtain” speech, one of the inaugural events of the Cold War.
In a speech in March marking the Iranian new year, he called for a year of “production and employment,” and urged the next president to create jobs with local resources, rather than look for assistance abroad.
Earlier this month, Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, delivered a speech called “The Specter of Monetarism.”
This past June, Germany’s parliament adopted a law that includes a provision for fines of up to €50 million ($59 million) on popular sites like Facebook and YouTube, if they fail to remove “obviously illegal” content, such as hate speech and incitements to violence, within 24 hours.
The question is whether Barr should still be defended in the name of free speech.
Free speech is more firmly protected by law in the US than anywhere else in the world.
The limits of free speech are not just legal.
The informal limits to free speech are subject to norms of social respectability.
Until Trump came along, US presidents were held to stricter norms of behavior and speech than ordinary people.
The polemics that preceded and followed Cameron’s recent speech on Europe showed that both British Euro-skeptics and Europe’s truest Europhiles – including such iconic figures as former European Commission President Jacques Delors – welcomed the British initiative.
In the coming years, the key issue, reflected in Hu’s Congress-opening speech, will be the relationship between the state and the market.
When Assad declared in a recent speech that, “Western powers sent Al Qaeda terrorists to turn Syria into a land of jihad…to weaken Syria,” Westerners chuckled incredulously.
To be sure, every country places some limits on speech.
As Oliver Wendell Holmes famously put it in a 1919 US Supreme Court decision, "Even the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater and causing a panic."
In a democracy, standard restrictions regulate the time, place, and manner of speech in order to prevent imminent violence and civil disorder.
Some countries, such as the US, refuse to go further and regulate speech because of its content.
The reason, as US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis put it, is that "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
Why, then, do many countries prosecute the hate speech of racists?
Why do International Human Rights Conventions stipulate that the law should prohibit speech that supports national, racial, or religious hatred?
Is any form of race-related speech that anybody finds offensive to be prosecuted?
But Ellwanger's appeal, which took almost a year for Brazil's Supreme Court to hear and decide, put Brazil squarely on the side of those who believe that inciting hatred against even a small minority - such as Jews in Brazil - cannot be allowed in the name of freedom of speech.
BackNext