Government Speech Research Articles

DKI Jakarta’s Regional Government Speech Act Analysis and Public Response to Air Pollution Issue on Instagram Platform

The problem of air pollution in Indonesia, especially in Jakarta, makes the society pay attention to this Indonesian’s capital city, and they give some opinion in social media such as Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, or other’s platform. The Jakarta’s government gave some responses through Instagrams platform, at @pandemictalks account about the Jakarta’s air pollution. This research is conducted to figure out how the use of linguistic feature, especially speech act used by the Jakarta’s government in facing the societies responses about the air pollution issue. Heru Budi as the PIC of Jakarta’s Governor, produced some illocutionary speech act such as representative, expressive, and directive illocutionary act. The researchers found not only the locution and illocutionary act, but also the perlocutionary act and its meaning that showed in the comment column of Instagram written by the public as the response of Heru’s utterances about air pollution problem. The researchers used descriptive qualitative method by Djajasudarma (2006) for data analyses and explained the data by describing through words. Data sources taken from the Instagram in @pandemictalks account, and the data are 7 slides of Jakarta’s government statement, also the response with the most like from the comment column. In analyzing the meaning of illocutionary act (Yule,1996), the researchers seeing from the contextual appear from the utterances. The data also showed that one utterance consists of two illocutionary acts meaning, such as representative + directive, and representative + expressive. The research findings are 4 data illocutionary act found in the object of study, and 3 perlocutionary act taken from the most love get from the public users of Instagram in that post, that represent about what the public opinion toward Heru’s statement about air pollution. Heru Budi uttered 2 data representative directive, 1 data representative expressive, and 1 data expressive act. In conclusion, the researchers also find most of society are disappointed by Budi’s statement, represent through 1 data representative directive act, 1 data expressive act, and 1 data representative expressive act.

The Government Speech Doctrine Ate My Class: First Amendment Capture and Curriculum Bans

The Government Speech Doctrine Ate My Class: First Amendment Capture and Curriculum Bans

Analysis of the Use of Discourse Cohesion Means of Speech Texts of the Regional Government of Jambi Province

Purpose of the study: This research aims to describe the means of discourse cohesion and the use of discourse cohesion means in the speech text of the Jambi Province regional government at the plenary session on January 6 2016. The expected benefit of this research theoretically is that it can be used to develop theories about discourse, especially regarding the use of cohesion means in discourse speech text.
 Methodology: The method used in this research is a qualitative method with descriptive research type. This research data is in the form of a means of cohesion contained in discourse. Data was obtained by reading the entire discourse of the speech text and marking the found means of cohesion and recording them.
 Main Findings: The results of research in the speech text of the regional government of Jambi Province at the plenary session on January 6 2016 found that there were 9 types of cohesive devices, consisting of pronouns, substitutions, ellipsis, conjunctions, repetitions, synonyms, antonyms, hyponyms and collocations. It can be concluded that the most common means of cohesion are pronouns and conjunctions. So, from the results of the analysis that has been carried out, the text of the Jambi Province regional government's speech at the plenary session on January 6 2016 is included in the very cohesive category.
 Novelty/Originality of this study: From the results of this research, it can be seen that there has been progress, namely that 9 means of cohesion were found and no non-cohesive means were found. Meanwhile, previous research only found 8 means of cohesion and found several uses of non-cohesive means of cohesion.

Communication Processes in the Communication Office Government Speech Formats: A Discursive Analysis of the News Published on the Rn Government Portal

The article presents an approach to the discourse produced by government communication offices, based on the communication developed in the news published in the institutional media of government agencies, as a public power. It highlights the relevant need to do Public Communication, respecting equal rights, through equity applied between political and governmental communication, in defense of public interests in the production of news content. In this context, it makes an clipping from Brandão's dissertation (2023). It fosters a discussion that supports the practical development of communication based on democratic principles and the exercise of citizenship, through the institutional information built. This research work aims to contribute theoretically and empirically, with Latin American research in the field of media communication, which defend the applicability of Public Communication. In addition, the study aims to expand this discussion on the international scene, to promote theoretical-empirical knowledge of the theoretical perspectives of PC and French Discourse Analysis (DA), which are the main study methods used in the research. It is intended to encourage future publications by researchers who are interested in the theme of construction public discourse. The results show the predominant types of communication in the 14 news analyzed, verifying the democratic contributions of the Communication Office of the Government of Rio Grande do Norte, however it is verified that the communication exercised, presents in the production of meanings of the narratives, more discursive elements of a political-governmental communication.

A Proposal for A Canadian Government Speech Doctrine

How does section 2(b) law deal with factual scenarios entailing a close connection between government and expression, such that the public reasonably believes the speech in issue emanates from the government and not from a private individual? Foundational principles suggest section 2(b) has internal limits that prevent private speakers from co-opting the government’s voice. This paper reviews section 2(b) doctrine and reveals that existing law does not adequately facilitate consideration of this government nexus, resulting in confusion in lower courts on how to approach these factual scenarios. Drawing on American sources, this article proposes a solution: introduction of a “government speech doctrine.” Such a doctrine, properly modified to take into account the unique Canadian context, could bring conceptual clarity to this area of law.

REPRESENTASI FEMINISME DAN IMPIAN HIDUP DAMAI TIONGKOK: STUDI TINDAK TUTUR ASERTIF DAN IMPLIKATUR KONVENSIONAL

The Chinese government as one of the influential countries for world development also participates in efforts to protect equal women's rights and peace life realization. This was heard in the Chinese government's speech to the United Nations on October 1, 2020. This study aims to discuss the contents of the speech which represents the actions of feminism and dream of peace life by China by applying the theory of assertive speech acts and conventional implicatures to provide new understanding and knowledge related to real social issues developing now. Through this research, it can be seen that in the speech text, there are 3 purposes of assertive speech acts, namely 5 data to state, 4 data to claim, and 1 data to conclude. Each of these objectives has implicatures resulting from document studies supported by speech and news data that are realized in linguistic and social contexts. The stated goals are that China has actively voiced gender equality through the Beijing World Conferences on Women since 1995, is concerned about women's work, the existence of women is very influential in the 21st century, will always fight for women's rights, and long for an equal society. The purpose of the claim is that China claims the existence of women to create peace, oversees the progressive development of the existence of women's rights, guarantees women's protection rights, and that the country is an active country in voicing gender equality. The purpose of the conclusion is that China concludes that Chinese women love their country and are willing to fight for the safety of their people regardless of differences. The results of this study provide a description that China is now a country that struggles to protect women and yearns for a peace life.

Government Speech

Abstract The First Amendment commands government neutrality in regulating private speech, but government speech itself is exempt from this requirement. Courts have recognized that governance entails educational, informational, and persuasive speech, and have focused on distinguishing government speech from nongovernment speech. Some critics have argued that, instead, courts might do well to target government speech that manipulates public opinion or abridges private speech, as it is the consequences of the speech and not the nature of the speaker that really matters. The basic problem remains unsolved: If courts treat government speech as covered by the First Amendment, the practical utility of government speech disappears. But if courts deny that government speech is covered by the First Amendment, government speech may silence or overwhelm private speech and much of the practical utility of the First Amendment may disappear.

Government Speech and the Establishment Clause

Government Speech and the Establishment Clause

United States: Protecting Commercial Speech under the First Amendment.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects commercial speech from government interference. Commercial speech has been defined by the US Supreme Court as speech that proposes a commercial transaction, such as marketing and labeling. Companies that produce products associated with public health harms, such as alcohol, tobacco, and food, thus have a constitutional right to market these products to consumers. This article will examine the evolution of US law related to the protection of commercial speech, often at the expense of public health. It will then identify outstanding questions related to the commercial speech doctrine and the few remaining avenues available in the United States to regulate commercial speech including the use of government speech and addressing deceptive and misleading commercial speech.

The End of Government Speech

The End of Government Speech

Protect the Filter Bubbles

In 2018, Knight v. Trump sparked discussion about the boundaries between government and citizen speech on social media. Some scholars argued that the courts erred in their decision to characterize the speech in question as government speech. Others argued that the court decided correctly and claimed that the use of forum analysis was necessary to protect both the health of our democracy and the First Amendment rights of social media users. Within the context of algorithmic curation of social media feeds, this article argues that (1) social media platforms are not designated public forums due to the algorithmic curation of online user speech, (2) due to this, the public forum doctrine should not have been applied to the Knight v. Trump case, (3) despite this, user speech rights should be protected online. It also reviews proposed models of thinking that could address unresolved issues of the case.

O QUE O BRASIL APRENDEU COM A PANDEMIA DE 2020?

Nesse texto, esboça-se uma interpretação sobre como o Brasil lidou com a pandemia de Covid-19 e um cenário hipotético sobre como será o país pós-pandemia. Argumenta-se que eventos traumáticos em grande escala são oportunidades de aprendizagem social, mas que, no caso brasileiro, houve uma conjunção de fatores culturais, políticos e ideológicos que bloqueou essa oportunidade. A reflexividade – conceito tão alardeado sobre a modernidade – não parece ser a protagonista dessa conjuntura. Entre os fatores mencionados, entrelaçam-se e retroalimentam-se o anti-intelectualismo, o relativismo e o negacionismo, consonantes com o discurso oficial governamental, e potencializados por elementos socioculturais brasileiros como um individualismo exacerbado e a pouca responsabilidade para com o coletivo. Ao final, são listadas algumas lições que deveriam, mas provavelmente não serão aprendidas pelo Brasil.

Law in the Shadows of Confederate Monuments

Hundreds of Confederate monuments stand across the United States. In recent years, leading historians have come forward to clarify that these statues were erected not just as memorials but to express white supremacist intimidation in times of racially oppressive conduct. As public support for antiracist action grows, many communities are inclined to remove public symbols that cause emotional harm, create constant security risks and dishonor the values of equality and unity. Finding a lawful path to removal is not always clear and easy. The political power brokers who choose whether monuments will stay or go often do not walk daily in their shadows. In recent years, eight Southern state legislatures enacted monument preservation legislation designed to thwart local removal efforts. These laws have prompted bitter conflicts, sometimes leading angry citizens to topple massive stone or bronze monuments themselves. The challenges present fertile ground for innovative lawyering. Creative applications of state property, nuisance and contract laws have led to removals notwithstanding the prohibitions of state preservation laws. When state law blocks removal or contextualization, communities may look to federal law as a source for taking antiracist action. First Amendment doctrine governing expressive speech has not provided a fruitful solution. Despite the expressive nature of Confederate monuments, efforts to weaponize the First Amendment by both sides of the monument debate have failed, largely due to the government speech doctrine. Given the age and quality of most monuments, copyright law is also not likely to provide an effective federal claim. The Federal Civil Rights Act offers an untapped but promising foundation for resolving these controversies. Title VI and Title VII could be used to challenge monuments that contribute to a hostile work or educational environment. Federal civil rights claims would supersede state legislation enacted to prevent removal of racially hostile symbols. Even when state law does not present removal barriers, communities who seek to take meaningful anti-racist action could ground their initiatives in the Civil Rights Act’s core value of equality. For all who are confronting this issue, this Article seeks to provide a legal and strategic framework for acknowledging history while reclaiming the symbolic heart of our public spaces and a means to assure that the symbols we elevate affirm shared contemporary values.

Addressing The Demonstrable Effects of Anti-Vax FEAR* Speech With Mandated Public- Health Education and Government Speech (*False, Endangering and Reckless)

The 2018-2019 measles epidemic was the worst the world has seen in 30 years, manifesting in increased morbidity, mortality, hospitalizations, and public health expenditures. Public Health officials and legal scholars attribute the rise to the emergence of organized and well-funded anti-vax groups, who disseminate false, endangering, and reckless “propaganda” (what I call FEAR speech) with the objective of fostering vaccine resistance. We are on track for similar resistance should a CoVid vaccine become a reality. To date, quantitative demonstration of cause and effect data is wanting. This research fills that gap, the first such research to do so via a systematic methodology. Using a novel approach, I explore the role of anti-vax groups in five localities, comparing recent measles epidemics with earlier epidemics in the same localities, also establishing that pamphleteering and conferences/symposia have been the most effective dissemination means for targeting insular communities.After evaluating several proposals to deal with the threat presented by these groups, including imposing tort liability and counter-speech, and concluding they are or will be ineffective, I propose a novel means of redress. After first determining that government speech would be be a viable approach, I advocate mandated educational curricula under this umbrella, targeted at the high school level and include a sample lesson plan outline.

Fruit of the Poisonous Lemon Tree: How the Supreme Court Created Offended-Observer Standing, and Why It's Time for it to Go

Can individuals who observe what they consider to be offensive government speech or conduct sue to stop it? Typically not — absent additional evidence of a direct and particularized injury. Yet in one area of the law, the fundamental requirements of Article III (limiting federal standing to actual “cases” or “controversies”) are relaxed: The Establishment Clause. At least ten circuits have held that the mere observation of a display containing religious content (the Ten Commandments, a cross, a menorah, and the like) on public property suffices to create an injury-in-fact that opens the doors to federal court. This Essay addresses the continued viability of offended-observer standing after the Supreme Court’s decision last Term in American Legion v. American Humanist Association. It picks up on arguments made by Justice Gorsuch — and by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty’s amicus brief, which we helped author — explaining why, with the much-criticized Lemon test now “shelved,” it is time for courts to similarly abandon the anomalous offended-observer standing doctrine and bring Establishment Clause standing back into line with both the bedrock requirements of Article III and binding Supreme Court precedent. We first explore the history of offended-observer standing and show how offended-observer standing grew out of over-eager efforts by the courts of appeals to find an Article III injury that would allow plaintiffs to vindicate — in the religious-display context — the substantive Establishment Clause rights created by Lemon. We then argue that it makes no sense to keep applying this relic in a post-Lemon world and explain why offended-observer standing is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent, the historical meaning of Article III, and good judicial policy.

From the Bench

Supreme Court, Libraries, Schools, Colleges and Universities, Book Publishing, Internet, Social Media, Free Speech, Prisons, Government Speech, Privacy, Church and State, Equal Protection vs. Religious Freedom, Net Neutrality, Campaign Financing

Trump's Lies: The Unconstitutionality of Government Propaganda

Government propaganda—the government’s deliberate dissemination of false claims on matters of public interest—has increasingly become a source of concern in the United States. Not only does the current presidential administration disseminate propaganda at a rate unprecedented in the modern era, so that Americans now live in an age of government-created “alternative facts,” but the internet and social media have made it possible to find receptive audiences with alarming speed and accuracy. This surge of government propaganda poses troubling questions for the health of our democracy, which requires political accountability and the valid consent of the governed to thrive. Although the crucial role that speech plays in our democratic self-rule is a major reason it merits First Amendment protection, the Free Speech Clause as currently interpreted has no part to play in combating government propaganda. Under the government speech doctrine, the Free Speech Clause does not apply to government speech, including government propaganda. It is time to revisit that conclusion. This Article argues that government propaganda, although government speech, ought to be regarded as covered by, and in violation of, the Free Speech Clause. Admittedly, this proposal is radical for two reasons. First, with few exceptions, the free speech tradition in the United States is averse to regulating harmful speech. Such regulations are believed to invite government abuse and to chill private speech. However, neither of these concerns are triggered when the government is the object rather than the enforcer of speech regulations. The second radical aspect of this proposal is bringing government speech into the purview of the Free Speech Clause. Nevertheless, government propaganda sufficiently undermines the core goals of free speech such that the Free Speech Clause ought to address it.

Sovereignty and First Amendment rights of higher education institutions: An affirmative and institutional approach

ABSTRACT This article offers an analysis of how, and to what extent, public institutions of higher learning, as agents of one sovereign, could assert free speech rights against the federal government, another sovereign. This work expands the First Amendment and government speech discourse by contributing a novel examination of Supreme Court precedent and the Court’s language addressing the expressive activities of universities under academic freedom. This work also situates itself theoretically in the Madisonian conception of the First Amendment Free Speech Clause, and makes the case that public universities should be recognized as institutions that occupy a special constitutional status within the doctrine. The article’s significance is underscored by the fact that the current political climate raises the specter of increased regulation and policing of the expressive activities of universities.

Universities' Speech and the First Amendment

Increasingly, scholars and students alike suggest that university leaders should engage in speech to oppose racism and other systemic discrimination—and in May and June 2020, countless university leaders across the country did exactly that, expressing solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement. That speech also contained implied answers to two questions: normatively, should a public university speak in this way, and legally, can it do so? Developing a robust answer to the second question is the focus of this Article, which brings together political scientist Corey Brettschneider’s conceptualization of government speech as persuasive or coercive; federal constitutional law (forum analysis doctrine and government speech doctrine); and recent changes in state law regarding free speech and public colleges and universities.

International Megan's Law as Compelled Speech

“The bearer was convicted of a sex offense against a minor, and is a covered sex offender pursuant to 22 United States Code Section 212b(c)(l).” International Megan’s Law (IML), passed in 2016, prohibits the State Department from issuing passports to individuals convicted of a sex offense against a minor unless those passports are branded with this phrase. The federal government's decision to brand its citizens’ passports with this stigmatizing message is novel and jarring, but the sole federal district court to consider a constitutional challenge to the passport identifier dismissed the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim, deeming the provision government speech. This Note argues that this passport identifier is more appropriately analyzed as a form of compelled speech, triggering strict scrutiny review that the IML’s passport identifier would not survive.