Itisreallyimportanttoconsiderthemasspeechactsandaskwhatclaimstheybringintobeinginorbymakingdeclarationsaboutrights.ItiseasytodismissthesedeclarationsthattheInternethasoccasioned,buttheyalsobegexamination.Somedismissthemfortheirostensibleineffectiveness,butthisisunderstoodintermsofconstativeratherthanperformativeeffects.Thequestionwe’dratheraskiswhat,ifany,imaginaryandperformativeifnotlegalforcedotheyhave?

OneaspectofhackerculturethatColemanhighlightsistheslogan‘codeisspeech’.[46]CodeisindeedthelanguageoftheInternet.Butisitspeech?FollowingAustin,wearguethatthroughspeechactswedosomethinginorbysayingsomething.Similarly,wewouldarguethatprogrammersaredoingsomethinginorbycodingsomething.Yet,toarticulatethismoreprecisely,codeisnotspeech:itisalanguageinorbywhichspeechactsareperformed.Justasinhumanlanguages,thedecisivethingsherearenotonlythelinguisticconventionsthatanimatespeechactsbutalsothesocialconventionsthattheybringabout

“free” as in “free and unfettered markets”

Traditional grammar was based on nine parts of speech:

Tounderstanddigitalactswehavetounderstandspeechactsorspeechthatacts.Thespeechthatactsmeansnotonlythatinorbysayingsomethingwearedoingsomethingbutalsothatinorbydoingsomethingwearesayingsomething.ItisinthissensethatwehaveargueddigitalactsaredifferentfromspeechactsonlyinsofarastheconventionstheyrepeatanditerateandconventionsthattheyresignifyareconventionsthataremadepossiblethroughtheInternet.Ultimately,digitalactsresignifyquestionsofanonymity,extensity,traceability,andvelocityinpoliticalways.

Theimportantthingistoseparateacts(locutionary,illocutionary

Itiswellnighimpossibletomakedigitalutteranceswithoutatrace;onthecontrary,oftentheforceofadigitalspeechactdrawsitsstrengthfromthetracesthatitleaves.Aswesaidinchapter2,eachofthesequestionsraisedbydigitalactscanarguablybefoundinothertechnologiesofspeechacts—thetelegraph,megaphone,radio,andtelephonecometomindimmediately.Butitiswhentakentogetherthatwethinkdigitalactsresignifythesequestionsandcombinetomakethemdistinctfromspeechacts,intermsofboththeconventionsbywhichtheybecomepossibleandtheeffectsthattheyproduce.

‘codeistheonlylanguagethatisexecutable.’[49]‘So[forGalloway]codeisthefirstlanguagethatactuallydoeswhatitsays—itisamachineforconvertingmeaningintoaction.’[50]WithAustin(andWittgenstein),thisconclusioncomesasamajorsurprisetous.Aswehavearguedinthischapter,forAustin(andWittgenstein)languageisanactivity,andinorbysayingsomethinginlanguagewedosomethingwithit—weact.Toputitdifferently,languageisexecutable.[51]Thereisnouniquenesstocodeinthatregard,althoughwhilecodeislikelanguage,itisdifferent.WethinkthatdifferenceistobesoughtinitseffectsandtheconventionsitcreatesthroughtheInternetratherthaninitsostensibleuniquenature

ThepremiseofthisbookisthatthecitizensubjectactingthroughtheInternetisthedigitalcitizenandthatthisisanewsubjectofpoliticswhoalsoactsthroughnewconventionsthatnotonlyinvolvedoingthingswithwordsbutdoingwordswiththings.

Thekeyissueinspeechactsbecomeswhether,andifsotowhatextent,whatissayableanddoablefollowsorexceedssocialconventionsthatgovernasituation.

Byadvancingtheideathatspeechisnotonlyadescription(constative)butalsoanact(performative),Austinushersinaradicallydifferentwayofthinkingaboutnotonlyspeakingandwritingbutalsodoingthingsinorbyspeakingandwriting.

butbodiesandtheirmovementsareimplicitinspeechthatacts.

Toputitdifferently,Austin’sconcernwithinfelicitousisnotaregretonhispartbutarecognitionthatspeechdoesnotonlyact,italsocanfailtoactorfailtoactinwaysanticipated.

Bysayingsomething,Ihaveaccomplishedsomething.Thus,‘of’sayingsomethinghasmeaning(locutionaryacts),whereas‘in’or‘by’sayingsomethinghasforce(illocutionaryandperlocutionaryacts).

Swachh Bharat Abhiyan Essay

CINNA. I am not Cinna the conspirator. FOURTH CITIZEN. It is no matter, his name’s Cinna; pluck but his name out of his heart, and turn him going.

Rather than lend legitimacy to this event, we respectfully request you stand up for a campus that is intellectually open and culturally diverse, but one that does not fall prey to the designs of external organizations who peddle partisan propaganda in the guise of “public scholarship.”

Censorship doesn’t refute anything Murray says, it only makes him a free speech martyr,"

Shouting down speakers is morally wrong, unprincipled, anti-intellectual, and utterly indefensible.

the grace and force of those ex-pressions which they used, when they sought to persuade or to affect.

anyone

No, no, no, no, no.

For every two steps forward, it often feels we take one step back.

It’s why GIs gave their lives at Omaha Beach and Iwo Jima; Iraq and Afghanistan — and why men and women from Selma to Stonewall were prepared to give theirs as well.

“the free software movement does this.” And again, I have to say: not quite. 

What level of knowledge of rap and understanding of its complicated conventions is a defendant-speaker to assume, in advance of communication, that a hypothetically reasonable person possesses in order to properly understand a rap message? Because the answer is anything but clear and because a speaker’s First Amendment rights should not hang on what amounts to guesswork about an audience’s hypothetically reasonable knowledge of a complex artistic and political genre of expression, the actual subjective intent of the defendant-speaker must be considered in both the First Amendment and statutory true threats analyses.

And, therefore, as infants cannot learn to speak except by learning words and phrases from those who do speak, why should not men become eloquent without being taught any art of speech, simply by reading and learning the speeches of eloquent men, and by imitating them as far as they can?

The teacher will he cautious, likewise, that concluding syllables be not lost; that his pupil's speech be all of a similar character; that whenever he has to raise his voice, the effort may be that of his lungs, and not of his head; and that his gesture may be suited to his voice, and his looks to his gesture. 9

As there are two kinds of speech, therefore, the continuous, which is called oratory, and the concise, which is termed logic (which Zeno thought so nearly connected that he compared the one to an open hand and the other to a clenched fist), if the art of disputation be a virtue, there will be no doubt of the virtue of that which is of so much more noble and expansive a nature.

Before all things, let the talk of the child's nurses not be ungrammatical.

In sounds also occur those faults of utterance and pronunciation, of which specimens cannot be given in writing;

A third would be the proper method of delivery; this is a thing that affects the success of a speech greatly; but hitherto the subject has been neglected. Indeed, it was long before it found a way into the arts of tragic drama and epic recitation: at first poets acted their tragedies themselves. It is plain that delivery has just as much to do with oratory as with poetry

three things -- volume of sound, modulation of pitch, and rhythm

In making a speech one must study three points: first, the means of producing persuasion; second, the style, or language, to be used; third, the proper arrangement of the various parts of the speech.

For of the three elements in speech-making -- speaker, subject, and person addressed -- it is the last one, the hearer, that determines the speech's end and object.