Example collocations logo

Speech in sentence

2069 examples of Speech in a sentence

Gauck’s speech reflected the thinking in an important new report, entitled New Power, New Responsibility, released by the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik and the German Marshall Fund of the United States.
But, by not referring to Gauck’s speech, he missed an opportunity to underline the success of one of Obama’s key foreign-policy tenets: as the US steps back from its role as global policeman and focuses more on diplomacy than force, other countries must step up.
Even more important, Kerry and Obama would do well to think hard about a key lesson embedded in Gauck’s speech and the report behind it.
Further constraints on freedom of speech – such as anti-blasphemy laws or, indeed, those laws that make Holocaust denial punishable – go too far.
Hillary Clinton gave a speech at the end of July decrying “quarterly capitalism” that chases short-term growth at the expense of sustainable business development, as well as addressing the exponential growth of CEO pay, and the need for a minimum-wage increase.
What is also apparent is the fact that the debate has been exploited and hijacked by radical and extreme elements on both sides of the divide – those defending the right of free speech and those who defend the Muslim faithWhat has also clearly come out is that faith has a deeper significance than merely belonging to the faithful.
But should such considerations override free speech at any cost?
While his moves have drawn international criticism, Magufuli continues his assault on free speech and political rights.
Then on October 1st at a National Day speech in the Great Hall of the People Premier Li Peng defiantly proclaimed that "After shaking off imperialist bullying and persecution from various powerful nations, the long suffering Chinese people have been on the rise ever since."
Indeed, it was precisely this logic that me led to give a very dark forecast in a widely covered speech in Singapore on August 19, 2008, a month before Lehman Brothers failed.
America is waking up to what was built while it slept: private companies have hired away its police (JPMorgan Chase gave $4.6 million to the New York City Police Foundation); the federal Department of Homeland Security has given small municipal police forces military-grade weapons systems; citizens’ rights to freedom of speech and assembly have been stealthily undermined by opaque permit requirements.
And they should support those – as in Albany, New York, for instance, where police and the local prosecutor refused to crack down on protesters – who respect the rights to free speech and assembly.
In a rambling speech earlier this year, US President Donald Trump suggested that he, too, supports such a policy.
He gave a luncheon speech and saw old friends from his brief stay in Iowa as a young man.
His speech in Mexico in 2009 demonstrated this.
What did Khrushchev actually say about Stalin in his secret speech of 1956?
Or consider his statement, during his nomination acceptance speech in Cleveland, that, if elected, he would revise NATO’s policy of automatic support for threatened members of the Alliance, or the crude “bill” for $300 billion, the amount Trump claims that Germany owes the US, that he presented to German Chancellor Angela Merkel during her recent visit to the US.
Indeed, Britain essentially invented and gave the rest of the world the idea of free speech.
After that return to sanity, it was hard to convict someone for political speech or writing in Britain.
No law specifically censored political speech, leaving only the much higher legal threshold of “disturbing the King’s peace.”
Despite a flood of Jacobin propaganda from revolutionary France, British parliamentarians remained committed to the idea that freedom of speech and the exposure of ideas to open debate would serve Britain best.
Efforts in 1823 and 1856 to pass laws constraining free speech were shouted down by members of Parliament using very modern-sounding objections: any curtailment of press freedom constituted a “slippery slope,” while one man’s sedition or blasphemy was another man’s common-sense opinion.
Of course, it is precisely this tradition of free speech and debate that has so often led the British press to “go too far” for the comfort of state officials and citizens alike.
But Parliament and courts always returned over time to the core British value of free speech and expression.
Britain needs to reestablish the primacy of free speech.
Above all, Cameron’s political future – and that of all UK politicians – should depend on whether he upholds Britain’s tradition of free speech and public debate or continues to betray it.
Across the Islamic world – from North Africa to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan – we see fragile relationships, unhappy transitions, unresolved conflicts, and outright attacks on the United States, despite Obama’s case for a new beginning, movingly articulated in his June 2009 speech in Cairo.
From Burma to Nigeria, the world pays close attention to the free speech rights of political dissidents.
President Barack Obama’s speech about reforms of US intelligence-gathering activities, as well as his subsequent interview on German television, represented a first attempt to regain the confidence of America’s allies.
In 1946, when Europe was debating its first tentative steps toward integration, Winston Churchill gave his famous speech calling for a United States of Europe.
BackNext