column after the election of Donald Trump in 2016 looked at “speech acts”, or what J.L. Austin, a philosopher, called “doing things with words”. Part of a president’s awesome power is that merely by opening his mouth he can set the official policy of the United States. Mr Trump, that column concluded, needed to learn to watch his words, given that they would soon constitute official acts.
Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one, but the law offers some pointers for the neutral. To begin with, America’s First Amendment strongly protects speech—including much that would be illegal in other democracies. Incitement of hatred of races or religions, for example, is banned in many European countries—even though the thing being incited is not itself a crime. American law does forbid “solicitation to commit a crime of violence”.
Which of these three tests—the speaker’s intent, the imminence of a crime and its likelihood—are met in the case of the Capitol riot? Imminence, clearly: the mob was in the Capitol building within an hour of Mr Trump’s harangue. What he intended, though, is less starkly obvious. Yet a direct command is hardly required to persuade someone to do something. Paul Grice, like Austin a philosopher of language, noted that a tacit but virtually universal “co-operation principle” is observed between speakers and hearers. It involves a “maxim of quality” and a “maxim of relation” . Expecting speakers to observe these conventions, hearers will try to interpret statements that seem to flout them in such a way that they still make sense.
You prefer the propaganda route, right?
The Economist is lost in biased rhetoric against Trump 3-1/2 years later than the rest of the media. Did they suddenly wake up, or did their dummy drop out. As they publish - bias leads to misinformation. It also equals fake news and a loss of quality.
Yes, but the crowd got violent, and it was the Chief law enforcement officer's duty to control them. insurrection
Peer pressure am i right? To be honest as much i agree D.T instigated the riots, they didnt had to participate. It was More on the supportes displaying their personal virtues.
And a man holding an empty can of accelerant at an arson is also conjecture, right?
When I played on football team, cheerleaders always had 'fight, fight, fight' in their cheers. None of us regardless of position on offense or defense ever physically fought during the 4 quarters of play whether we won or lost.
Seditionists - “we literally believe Trump sent us here and endorses everything we’re doing.” Giuliani, right before Trump spoke - “We’re going to have trial by combat!” Media - “maybe when he said fight it was a metaphor”
Noting to 'Tell' Its a settled. Not Academic! Visit a Local Library. The Judicial Branch and US Constitution are the only recognized competent authority that decide Freedom of Speech Laws. A person committing a violent act is solely responsible. What's to Tell! Oh Pleeeezzze!
Trump voters don't understand metaphors. They take everything literally.
I always understood The Economist to be a journalistic news organization and not a radically driven far right group as this article indicates. Really disappointing!
POTUS is gone tomorrow anyway
Agree
Trying to invent excuses ? Based on this article we should fire too many leaders around the world. You are using hypocrite language. This article level is really garbage compared with the past ones.
Yup these people are calculated and pay people to get them as close to breaking the law as they can. All of this is setting the stage for the Antichrist who will one day turn to killing people who will not bow and worship him:
This is literally the least literate president of the modern era. He wouldn't know a metaphor if it crawled up out of his goldplated toilet and bit him on the ass. 'Fight' wasn't metaphor; it was directive.
His crowd only thinks literally, not conceptually
Looking at his Jan 6 speech alone is far too narrow. Other speakers said the quiet part out loud while he hid behind winks and nods. The people who attacked the capitol claimed to be acting on his orders while they did it. They understood it, why should we pretend not to?
Who’s holding the megaphone? Satan
Unbelievable! You are inciting lies by even saying that! We ARE fighting for our freedom!!
For the people who received trump's message the 'metaphorically' left the building 3 yrs ago, by the time the election began they were on the 'literal' meaning of trump's words.
you would think the president would mean fight when he says fight, isn't that proper to mean what you say? 🤔
How are things with the capitol now?
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.