what is speech event meaning

The Applied Linguistics Repository

Spoken english: speech event.

Lecture notes

Course: Spoken English

Lecturer: Keith Richards

Topic: The Speech Event

These notes are extracts only and do not include the arguments developed in the lectures. Neither do they include handouts or workshop activities. They are an additional resource designed primarily for those who attended the relevant lectures.

Important note

The subject of these notes is the speech event rather than the ethnography of communication, which is the broader field of which it is a part. My choice has been determined partly by considerations of time and practicality but also by a consideration of the place that the speech event plays in the ethnography of communication. It is generally accepted as the central concept and in my view represents the best introduction to the field. Duranti sums up the situation succinctly:

For many researchers, the speech event still represents a level of analysis that has the advantage of preserving information about the social system as a whole while at the same time allowing the researcher to get into details of the personal acts

Duranti 1988:219

In view of this, I strongly advise you to follow up the lecture and workshop by reading either Saville-Troike’s excellent brief introduction to the broader field in the McKay collection (1996) or her earlier book (1989) dedicated to the subject. Alternatively, or in addition, you could read Keating (2001).

Review and introduction

In the first week we looked at aspects of communicative competence at the broadest level. This week we’ll move on to attempt to identify appropriate models for describing specific instances of language in use. Just by way of a general reminder and as an indication of the task ahead, here is one attempt to capture the range of relevant components:

Components of communication

1 Linguistic knowledge

(a) Verbal elements

(b) Nonverbal elements

(c) Patterns of possible variants (in all elements and their organization)

(e) Meanings of variants in particular situations

2 Interaction skills

(a) Perception of salient features in communicative situations

(b) Selection and interpretation of forms appropriate to specific situations, roles, and relationships (rules for the use of speech)

(c) Discourse organization and processes

(d) Norms of interaction and interpretation

(e) Strategies for achieving goals

3 Cultural knowledge

(a) Social structure

(b) Values and attitudes

(c) Cognitive maps/schemata

(d) Enculturation processes (transmission of knowledge and skills)

(Saville-Troike 1989: 24)

If we listen to the way people speak, it soon becomes apparent that there are certain activities where interaction seems to be organised in recognisable ways, with rules about what can and cannot be said. We know, for example, that there are accepted ways of issuing and accepting invitations, of making a toast, of making introductions, and so on. This is what lies behind the idea of a speech event, the subject of this week’s sessions.

Speech events in everyday talk

In fact, we use terms which refer to speech events all the time, and these carry a useful semantic load; for example, each of the following utterances refers to a specific speech events. Decide what the relevant interactional rules are:

‘I was late for her lecture .’

‘We had a wonderful chat .’

‘Did you hear the announcement? ’

Sometimes we take for granted that others know the relevant rules and therefore leave them unstated. If I say, W didn’t have much of a conversation — all he wanted to talk about was his model soldiers,’ I take it as understood that topics of conversation are normally negotiated by participants and that as a result they usually cover different subjects.

The interesting thing about speech events is that they bring together social and linguistic aspects, as Hymes noted:

A general theory of the interaction of language and social life must encompass the multiple relations between linguistic means and social meaning. The relations within a particular community or personal repertoire are an empirical problem, calling for a mode of description that is jointly ethnographic and linguistic.

Hymes 1986:39

Towards a definition

Various definitions of speech events have been offered, and the following discussion is based on those taken from core texts. We begin with three that, taken together, provide a reasonable overview:

The basic unit for the analysis of verbal interaction in speech communities is the speech event ... The speech event is to the analysis of verbal interaction what the sentence is to grammar. When compared with the sentence it represents an extension in size of the basic analytical unit from single utterances to stretches of utterances, as well as a shift in focus from emphasis on text to emphasis on interaction. Speech event analysis focuses on the exchange between speakers

Gumperz 1986: 16-17

At the level of ethnographic description, verbal behavior in all societies can be categorized in terms of speech events: units of verbal behavior bounded in time and space. Events vary in the degree to which they are isolable. They range from ritual situations where behavior is largely predetermined to casual everyday talk. Yet all verbal behavior is governed by social norms specifying participant roles, rights and duties vis-?-vis each other, permissible topics, appropriate ways of speaking and ways of introducing information. Such norms are context and network specific, so that the psycholinguistic notion of individuals relying on their own personal knowledge of the world to make sense of talk in context is an oversimplification which does not account for the very real interactive constraints that govern everyday verbal behavior.

Gumperz 1982: 164-5

A single event is defined by a unified set of components throughout, beginning with the same general purpose of communication, the same general topic, and involving the same participants, generally using the same language variety, maintaining the same tone or key and the same rules for interaction, in the same setting.

Saville-Troike 1989: 27

Gumperz’s comment on the way in which social norms govern verbal behaviour is particularly important, since this is the relationship upon which the concept is based. It is also the reason why the analysis of speech events has played such a central role in the ethnography of communication. Notice, too, his emphasis on the interactive nature of such events within what is a very wide range, from the entirely predictable (ritual) to the more or less open (casual talk). Valuable as these insights are, however, when we look for a definition of the speech event, Gumperz is able to offer nothing more specific than, ‘units of verbal behavior bounded in time and space.’ Taken with the proviso that such events may not be isolable, this leaves the issue of definition pretty much in the air. For a more positive formulation we need to turn to Saville-Troike, whose repetition of the term ‘same’ makes her definition nothing if not consistent. Even so, working from this definition alone, I’m not sure that it would be easy to provide examples of speech events.

Duranti’s comments are worth noting because of their reminder that speech is central to so many of the social activities we engage in, to the extent that some are actually constituted through talk:

The basic assumption of a speech-event analysis of language use is that an understanding of the form and content of everyday talk in its various manifestations implies an understanding of the social activities in which speaking takes place ... Such activities, however, are not simply ‘accompanied’ by verbal interaction they are also shaped by it: there are many ways, that is, in which speech has a role in the constitution of a social event. The most obvious cases are perhaps gossip sessions and telephone conversations, neither of which could take place if talk were not exchanged. But even the most physically oriented activities such as sport events or hunting expeditions rely heavily on verbal communication for the participants' successful coordination around some common task.

Duranti 1988: 218.

Although it does not mention this issue, one of the questions this raises is that of definition because while some of the activities we engage in are very easy to label and to describe, others are more problematic. The same might be said of speech events.

I’ve chosen the following because I found it amusing when I first read it and because it raises the interesting question of how precise our labels need to be. It could just be categorised as ‘small talk’, but in this case it’s clear that certain extra rules are in play that apply to talking to royalty, so I suppose we might characterise it as ‘making small talk with the reigning monarch’. Try to work out the rules yourself and compare your conclusions with mine.

01 Q: Have you been riding today, Mr Greville?

02 G: No, Madam, I have not.

03 Q: It was a fine day.

04 G: Yes, Ma’am, a very fine day.

05 Q: It was rather cold though.

06 G: ( Like Polonius ) It was rather cold, Madam.

07 Q: Your sister, Lady Francis Egerton, rides, I think, does she not?

08 G: She does ride sometimes, Madam.

09 ( A pause, when I took the lead, though adhering to the same

10 same topic .)

11 G: Has your Majesty been riding to-day?

12 Q: ( With animation ) Oh, yes, a very long ride.

13 G: Has your Majesty got a nice horse?

14 Q: Oh, a very nice horse.

Brett, S. (ed). 1987. The Faber Book of Diaries . London: Faber & Faber.

One way of checking the rules you’ve identified is to find an example where they’re broken and see what the interactional consequences of this are. The following is just such a case, and you might like to see which of the rules you’ve identified are being violated here.

The exchange in question took place in 1960s in England and involved a very popular comedian, Tommy Cooper. Traditionally, the monarch would attend a number of ‘important’ national events, including the Royal Variety Performance and, a few weeks later, the (football) Cup Final. At the end of the former, stars of the show would line up to meet the Queen, having first been informed of the relevant interactional rules (identical to those which applied in the above exchange). Upon being told by the Queen that she had found him very funny, Cooper asked her whether she had really found him funny and, receiving a positive reply, sought further confirmation, to the noticeable discomfort of her attendants and others in the party. At this point, the conversation developed along these lines:

Cooper: May I ask your majesty a personal question?

(Awkward silence)

Queen: (Frostily) So far as I may allow.

Cooper: Do you enjoy football, ma’am?

Queen: No, as a matter of fact I don’t.

Cooper: Well in that case can I have your Cup Final tickets?

(General laughter)

Goffman (1974) has described such behaviour in terms of ‘frames’, which answer the question ‘What is happening here’ and represent the way in which we structure our experience. In the example above Tommy Cooper is ‘breaking frame’. The awkward silence here and the frosty reception are significant both socially and as part of the setting up of the punchline, but the joke has already been prepared for in the earlier establishment of Cooper’s role as a ‘funny man’. We can see a contrast between his behaviour here and that of Greville, whose tortuous efforts to keep to the rules make the earlier example so amusing. It seems to me that the rules in the Queen Victoria example (which don’t seem to have changed) are pretty straightforward: let the Queen take the lead unless a pause in the conversation indicates that a switch is permissible, but make sure you keep to the same topic — and whatever happens, don’t disagree. Tommy Cooper not only takes the lead but selects his own topic (and marks this as a ‘personal’ one).

The SPEAKING model

This is the best known model for analysing speech events. Hymes, who developed it, referred to it as an etic grid and explained the need for such descriptive apparatus as follows:

Even the ethnographies that we have, though almost never focused on speaking, show us that communities differ significantly in ways of speaking, in patterns of repertoire and switching, in the roles and meanings of speech ... Since there is no systematic understanding of the ways in which communities differ in these respects, and of the deeper relationships such differences may disclose, we have it to create. We need taxonomies of speaking, and descriptions adequate to support and test them

Hymes (1986:42-43)

S ituation 3 Setting

P articipants 5 Speaker, or sender

6 Addressor

7 Hearer, or receiver, or audience

8 Addressee

E nds 9 Purposes — outcomes

10 Purposes — goals

A ct sequence 1 Message form

2 Message content

K ey 11 Key

I nstrumentalities 12 Channels

13 Forms of speech

N orms 14 Norms of interaction

15 Norms of interpretation

G enres 16 Genres

The order here is based on the acronym, but numbers refer to the order in which these components are introduced in Hymes (1986).

Speech event components

One of the things which has always impressed me about Hymes’ SPEAKING model is the subtlety of the distinctions within it: the beauty of the description lies in the divisions within each of the main components. The following comments highlight the main points I made in the lecture:

Hymes’ distinction between setting and scene is an important one. Setting refers to the physical context in which the interaction takes place and may influence the sort of talk that is allowable (e.g. religious building vs bar or caf?). Scene is also part of the situation but its locus is psychological rather than physical. Hymes points out that the same physical setting might be the location for different psychological scenes. Within the same setting participants may move from formal to informal, festive to serious etc.

Participants

The distinctions here are along the same lines as Goffman’s ‘production format’ involving the ‘animator’, who produces talk, the ‘author’, who creates talk, and the ‘principal’, who is responsible for talk. The first distinction is between speaker (or sender ) and addressor . The former is responsible for the message while the latter is the person who physically delivers it. Normally these are the same, but not always. For example, when in the United States the presidential spokesperson delivers an unpalatable message, nobody points the finger of blame towards the deliverer: it is the President who must bear the brunt of any backlash. The second distinction, which parallels the first, is that between the hearer (or receiver , or audience ) and the addressee . The receiver of ‘Now do this in pairs’ in a coursebook may be the students but the main addressee is the teacher.

The distinction which Hymes draws here between outcomes and goals is perhaps less easy to pin down in practice. Outcomes refers to what is conventionally expected or publicly stated as the object of the event from the point of view of the community, whereas the reference to goals recognises that the parties involved may have purposes which are related but not identical to this. Hymes is careful to point out that, for both outcomes and goals, we must be careful to distinguish what is conventionally recognised from what is purely personal or situational.

Act sequence

This refers to the sequence of acts which makes up a speech event. Hymes draws a distinction between message form and message content offering an example of this distinction in terms of ‘He prayed saying “....”’ (where the words appearing between double quotation marks represent the form) and ‘He prayed that he would get well’ which reports the content only. Presumably the difference between the two could be much greater. For example, the message form, ‘Have you seen the time?’ would, in the right context, have a message content which would be represented as, ‘He said it was time they were going.’ This seems to be essentially the same as the locutionary form and illocutionary force distinction originally made by Austin and a key distinction in Speech Act Theory.

The term is used in its conventional sense, to refer to ‘the tone manner, or spirit in which an act is done’ (Hymes 1986:62).

Instrumentalities

These are, again, conventional. Channel is used in the conventional sense, so it would be important, for example, to distinguish face-to-face communication from talk on the telephone. Forms of speech Hymes identifies as language and dialect, codes, and varieties and registers. It is interesting to note that Saville-Troike includes non-verbal elements under message form, which is surely legitimate. But to represent these (e.g. 1989:166; 169; 173) in general terms as ‘kinesics’ or ‘proxemics’ or ‘eye gaze’ is less acceptable, even when specific examples are provided in the analysis itself. Research in the area of non-verbal communication has demonstrated conclusively that it is an important feature of all face-to-face communication, and detailed studies (e.g. Goodwin 1981 on gaze direction) have revealed that its role is a subtle and complex one. The dilemma for speech event analysis is that this aspect cannot be ignored but there is simply not the space to do it full justice. Selection of ‘relevant’ non-verbal features is therefore inevitably, to some extent, arbitrary.

The two components under this head are particularly important, and many cross-cultural comparisons tend to focus on these areas. Norms of interaction refer to the conventional rules relating to the conduct of the speech event. These will include rules about floor holding, turn-taking, delivery, topic etc. Norms of interpretation are also of crucial importance in speech events and in cross-cultural interaction generally. These refer to the rules which determine the interpretation of particular acts. A failure to understand relevant norms of interpretation was responsible for some very expensive mistakes when the US first engaged in large scale business negotiations in Japan.

The final element is genre, which is not necessarily an element at all. This is not Hymes’ stated position, and he explicitly argues (1986:65) that genres can be invoked within specific events, as when the ‘sermon’ is invoked for humorous purposes within another event. However, it seems to me that this is a special case, and that unless a genre is exploited in this way, it is more likely to be a super-ordinate descriptive category. This is, in fact, how Hymes himself uses it, as the genre (‘Scoring’) within which certain events (shaman’s retribution, girl’s puberty rite, testing of children) are located (1986:67-68).

The model in Perspective

‘The spirit of the model is heuristic, that is, it is designed as an aid to noticing, formulating and organizing materials, and it is designed so as to become itself an object of data- and experience-based critique.’

Philipsen, G. & Coutu, M. 2005. The ethnography of speaking. In K. L. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pages 355-379. (Page 365)

Basic elements

A number of other writers have developed similar models, all very similar. There’s no need to explore these in depth, but it’s worth noting that the common elements seem to be the first three in Hymes’ list (situation, participants and ends), so you could say these are the core elements, though as far as I know nobody has actually claimed that.

To see how these elements might work when it comes to interpreting an utterance, try working out the purpose (ends) of the following utterance, given the situation and the setting:

Do you know where today’s paper is?

1. Participants: colleague → colleague

Setting: Senior Common Room.

2. Participants: master → servant

Setting: breakfast table

3. Participants: husband → wife

Setting: living room

You should have found the first two very straightforward, but the last one is more problematic, as we saw in the first week:

Husband: Do you know where today’s paper is?

Wife: I’ll get it for you.

Husband: That’s OK Just tell me where it is. I’ll get it.

Wife: No, I’LL get it.

(Gumperz 1982: 135)

This is not an issue we need to explore, but it does serve as a reminder of the points I covered in the first week about the many dimensions of spoken language, which means that it often resists a priori categorisation. As we’ll see next week, this is a position that conversation analysis takes up.

Situation and Event

So far I’ve concentrated on the defining characteristics of the speech event, but the event itself is part of a hierarchy of descriptive terms used by those in the field. Hymes himself offers a fairly extensive list of ‘social units’, but I’ll like to concentrate on the three main elements. Two of these, situation and event, seem to me to be fairly unproblematic, but the speech ‘act’ does throw up a number of problems. For the purpose of discussion we’ll use a slightly adapted example from Saville-Troike (1989:28-29):

SITUATIONS: Party

Religious service

EVENTS: Call to worship

Reading of scriptures

Announcements

Benediction

ACTS: Summons

Supplication

Closing formula

In this example, the element in italics is carried on to the next level, where it is broken down, so that the situation religious service is represented by the list of events, and from these prayer is chosen as the element to be broken down into acts.

The distinction between (speech/communicative) situation and (speech) event is a straightforward one. The term situation here is used in its conventional sense to stand for the general social context in which communication occurs. A situation is not defined by speaking, although speaking may normally be expected to occur within it. So, for example, speaking would be expected to occur at a party (although it is just about possible to imagine a party where the loudness of the music makes speaking ‘at’ the party impossible), but there will also be other activities, such as dancing, where speaking may not feature. A speech event, however, is defined in terms of speaking, at least in the sense of being governed by the norms relating to this:

The term speech event will be restricted to activities, or aspects of activities, that are directly governed by rules or norms for the use of speech.

Hymes 1986:56

So within the speech situation ‘religious service’, prayer may be a speech event. Obviously, there are forms of prayer which do not involve speech, but the focus here is on ‘spoken’ or ‘public’ prayer. For obvious reasons, Saville-Troike has chosen a clear cut example, and I’ve followed her, but this is not to say that speech events are always so easy to identify, and, as Gumperz notes (1982:164), they may not be easy to isolate. It may also be possible to find one event embedded within another (e.g. an announcement within a lecture) and they may be discontinuous (the lecture may be briefly interrupted as other business is transacted). They can also range from single utterances (‘Fire!’) to extended sequences (e.g. a lecture).

Gumperz’s observation (1982:164) that speech events can range from ritual situations to casual talk seems particularly relevant to TESOL, where coursebooks seem to be to be guilty all too often of ignoring this continuum. We often find them treating as ritual — and therefore subject to precise specification — what properly belongs to the more open end of the range.

Despite these minor reservations, the concept of the speech event is reasonably well-defined, and as an analytical unit it has proved its worth. However, the status of ‘speech act’ is much more problematic. In the end, I think we probably have to accept that the concept of an ‘act’ in EC is far from clear, but it does represent a unit of description below the level of the event. For this reason it seems safest, and perhaps most sensible, to think of acts as part of an ‘act sequence’, which is what Saville-Troike does in her book (e.g. 1989:163). In this way attention is drawn to the fact that they are essentially descriptive units. Having said this, I’d now like to point to what is problematic about the concept, starting with Hymes’ own acknowledgement of the difficulty of labelling acts:

The labelling of the acts is unavoidably somewhat arbitrary.

Hymes 1986:68

The most serious problem associated with the speech act is that its status is by no means clear. Saville-Troike (1996:371) says that it is ‘generally coterminous with a single interactional function, such as a referential statement, a request, or a command, and may be either verbal or nonverbal.’ The problem with this is that the idea of a single interactional function is pretty vague, and ‘generally’ coterminous allows plenty of space for alternatives. The situation isn’t helped by the fact that Hymes states that a joke can be a speech act within a conversation:

The term speech event will be restricted to activities, or aspects of activities, that are directly governed by rules or norms for the use of speech. An event may consist of a single speech act, but will often comprise several. Just as an occurrence of a noun may at the same time be the whole of a noun phrase and the whole of a sentence (e.g. ‘Fire!’), so a speech act may be the whole of a speech event, and of a speech situation (say, a rite consisting of a single prayer, itself a single invocation). More often, however, one will find a difference in magnitude: a party (speech situation), a conversation during the party (speech event), a joke within the conversation (speech act). It is of speech events and speech acts that one writes formal rules for their occurrence and characteristics. Notice that the same type of speech act may recur in different types of speech event, and the same type of speech event in different contexts of situation. Thus, a joke (speech act) may be embedded in a private conversation, a lecture, a formal introduction. A private conversation may occur in the context of a party, a memorial service, a pause in changing sides in a tennis match.

Hymes 1977: 52

I have to admit that I’m not at all comfortable with the idea that a joke is a speech act because jokes can be very extended affairs. There’s also the disturbing possibility that a speech event (e.g. an announcement) might find itself embedded, albeit artificially, within a speech act (it’s easy to imagine it featuring as part of a joke, for example). This is why I feel that the much looser term ‘act sequence’ is useful, since it recognises — perfectly reasonably, it seems to me — that events can sometimes be broken up into a sequence of acts (‘phases’ or ‘stages’ might serve just as well to capture this idea). The precise status of such elements then does not need to be spelt out.

There is another problem with the use of the term ‘speech act’ which arises from its better known use within a related but distinct field. Speech Act Theory developed from the work of the philosopher, Austin, who recognised that certain utterances are used to do more than convey information. He demonstrated that they also perform particular acts. Subsequently, a great deal of work in pragmatics centred on the analysis of such ‘speech acts’, which are always specific utterances. Such work is related indirectly to the concerns of the ethnography of communication, but its treatment of isolated examples, often invented, marks it as coming from a different tradition. Duranti summarises the essential differences between the two fields:

What usually distinguishes the ethnographic approach from pragmatic analysis is a stronger concern for the socio-cultural context of the use of language, with the specific relationship between language and local systems of knowledge and social order, and a lesser commitment to the relevance of logical notation to the strategic use of speech in social interaction.

Duranti 1988:213

Where two traditions use exactly the same term for a central concept, the potential for confusion is considerable, and its not helped when the key figures in each tradition (Austin and Hymes) choose examples which could easily be interchanged. This seems to provide a very good reason for referring to an ‘act sequence’ or following Saville-Troike in using the term ‘communicative act’.

Acts and events

While there is potential for confusion in the use of the term ‘speech act’, it’s also true to say that the connection between event and act is an intimate one. The best way of illustrating this is to ask you to match the following ‘acts’ to the events in which they might occur:

‘Five past ten — is that the time!’

‘It is five minutes past ten, Mr James.’

‘It is 10.05.’

Announcement

The first thing to notice in these examples is that the form of the utterance is different in each case. It would be very odd, for example, to find someone in a conversation giving the time as 10.05. Perhaps more importantly in view of the issue of acts and their function, it seems clear that a knowledge of the relevant speech event enables us to identify quite clearly the ‘message content’ of these utterances (what Speech Act Theory would call their ‘illocutionary force’). In the first case we know that lectures begin and end at specified times, that the speaker and audience are expected to remain in situ throughout, and that the lecturer is expected, within reasonable limits, to keep to the subject of the lecture. So when Mr James arrives five minutes late and the lecturer reminds him of the time, we know that this is not part of the lecture as such but is an aside which serves as an admonition. In the case of the announcement, which is designed to present information, a bare statement of the precise time achieves the necessary communicative end.

The relationships in the examples are therefore as follows:

Lecture: “It is five minutes past ten, Mr James.”

Chat: “Five past ten — is that the time!”

Announcement: “It is 10.05.”

The ‘chat’ example is perhaps a little more subtle than the others because conversation is the least predictable (in terms of content at least) of all events. However, we know that conversations have to open and close, and if we reflect we will realise that sometimes speakers signal that a conversation has to come to an end (using ‘pre-closers’). In this case the speaker expresses surprise — even alarm — about the time, and from what we know of conversations we can safely assume that it announces that something needs to be done which will either interrupt or end the conversation.

There is, then, a relationship between the interpretation of specific acts within a speech event and the event itself as a representation of shared understandings of the relevant social context; and whatever the shortcomings of the notion of ‘act’ as Hymes represents it, these shouldn’t blind us to the fact that his etic grid offers is a subtle and insightful representation of the components which make up a speech event.

In fact, I think it’s well worth making an effort to get to grips with this concept and with the use of etic grids, but I’m less convinced by some of the more general claims of the ethnography of communication. If you’d like to pursue this (and this very much depends on where your particular interests lie), you’ll need to read Saville-Troike’s 1996 paper in the light of my suggestions in the next section.

Issues in the ethnography of communication

If you’re interested in exploring this field further, Saville-Troike (1996) makes a very good starting point. You might like to read this, noting the following:

• any apparent contradictions in the statements the author makes;
• definitions or descriptions which seem to you to be vague or very general in scope;
• proposals which seem to you to be optimistic;
• any other problems.

You might also consider how much of what she says here is relevant to TESOL as opposed to TESL or first language teaching.

If you’re interested in my own thoughts on the subject, these can be accessed at:

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/celte/staff/richards_k/se2lecturenotesrichards_k/issuesinec/

Duranti, A. 1988. Ethnography of speaking: towards a linguistics of praxis. In F. Newmeyer (ed), The Cambridge Linguistic Survey, Part IV, pp.210-28 . Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, J. 1982. Discourse Strategies . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, J. 1986. Introduction. In Gumperz & Hymes (eds), pp.1-25.

Gumperz, J. J. and Hymes, D. (eds). 1986. Directions in Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hymes, D. 1977. Foundations in Sociolinguistics. London: Tavistock.

Hymes, D. 1986. Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Gumperz. and Hymes (eds), pp.35-71.

Keating, E. 2001. The ethnography of communication. In P. Atkinson, A, Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland and L. Lofland (eds), Handbook of Ethnography , pp.285-301. London: Sage.

Saville-Troike, M. 1989 The Ethnography of Communication (Second Edition). Oxford: Blackwell.

Saville-Troike, M. 1996. The ethnography of communication. In S.L. McKay (ed), Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching, pp.351-80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

I suggest that you approach this in the following way:

1. Read Labov’s treatment of the subject, either in his book or in the extract reprinted in Joworski and Coupland.

2. Read my brief notes below to check that you have identified the essential elements.

3. Study my analysis of the ‘James Bond’ story.

4. Study the ‘Students as villains’ story and identify any interesting elements in it. Compare your findings with mine in my 1999 paper.

If you plan to write your assignment on this topic, you should explore the papers that appear in the Reading section below (Thornbury & Slade includes a useful chapter). You could also search the Journal of Pragmatics to see whether there have been any studies of narrative in your own language.

Some definitions

We define narrative as one method of recapitulating past experience by matching

a verbal sequence of clauses to the sequence of events which (it is inferred)

actually occurred. Labov 1999: 225

• A minimal narrative is a sequence of two narrative clauses that are temporally ordered.
• A narrative clause is confined by temporal juncture. This means that if the order is changed the inferred temporal sequence is changed.
• A free clause is not confined by any temporal juncture.

Here is an example from Labov 1977/1999. Identify the narrative clauses then check your answer against Labov’s analysis:

a. I know a boy named Harry.

b. Another boy threw a bottle at him right in the head

c. and he had to get seven stitches.

Labov 1999: 227

Story Structure

Labov describes the elements in narratives, then sums these up in terms of the questions to which they respond:  

Abstract What was this about?

Orientation Who, when, what, where?

Complicating Action Then what happened?

Evaluation So what?

Result What finally happened?

Note that the coda is a signal that the narrative has finished and therefore does not respond to a question. Labov says that if you ask the question, ‘And then what happened?’ after a coda, the only possible response is, ‘Nothing; I just told you what happened.’

Types of Story

Narrative As above

Anecdote Notable event and reaction

(resolution not expected)

Exemplum Told to make a moral point

(typically incident and interpretation)

Recount Essentially expository

(record of events)

(Thornbury and Slade 2006: 152-158)

Here is the story on the handout (but note that the alignment on this webpage version is less accurate than on the original):

All of the following are available from Warwick library:

Jefferson, G. 1978. Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction , pp.219-248. New York: Academic Press.

Johnstone, B. 2003. Discourse analysis and narrative. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and H. E. Hamilton (eds), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis , pp.635-649. Oxford: Blackwell.

Labov, W. 1977. Language in the Inner City . Oxford: Blackwell. Reprinted in A. Jaworski and N. Coupland (eds), The Discourse Reader , London: Routledge, 1999. Pages 221-235.

Norrick, N. R. 2001. Discourse markers in oral narrative. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(6): 849- 878

Norrick, N. R. 2005. Interactional remembering in conversational narrative. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11): 1819-1844.

Schiffrin, D. 1981. Tense variation in narrative. Language , 57 (1): 45-62.

Tannen, D. 1982. Oral and literate strategies in spoken and written narratives. Language , 58(1): 1-21.

Thornbury, S. and Slade, D. 2006. Conversation: From Description to Pedagogy . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Toolan, M. J. 2001. Narrative: A Critical Linguistic Introduction (2 nd Edition). London: Routledge.

Wolfson, N. 1979. The conversational historical present alternation. Language , 55(1): 168-182.

The following is available from the Applied Linguistics Resources Centre:

Richards, K. 1999. Working towards common understandings: Collaborative interaction in staffroom stories. Text , 19(1): 143-174.

Competition Events

Competition Events Guide

Speech  involves a presentation by one or two students that is judged against a similar type of presentation by others in a round of competition. There are two general categories of speech events, public address events and interpretive events.  Public address events  feature a speech written by the student, either in advance or with limited prep, that can answer a question, share a belief, persuade an audience, or educate the listener on a variety of topics.  Interpretation events center upon a student selecting and performing published material and appeal to many who enjoy acting and theatre. 

Debate involves an individual or a team of students working to effectively convince a judge that their side of a resolution or topic is, as a general principle, more valid. Students in debate come to thoroughly understand both sides of an issue, having researched each extensively, and learn to think critically about every argument that could be made on each side.

To learn more about each event, click on the event name.

Interp events.

• Dramatic Interpretation (DI)
• Duo Interpretation (DUO)
• Humorous Interpretation (HI)
• Poetry (POE)
• Program Oral Interpretation (POI)
• Prose (PRO)
• Storytelling (STO)

Public Address Events

• Commentary (EXC)
• Declamation (DEC)
• Expository (EXP)
• Impromptu (IMP)
• Informative Speaking (INF)
• International Extemporaneous Speaking (IX)
• Mixed Extemporaneous Speaking (MX)
• Original Oratory (OO)
• Original Spoken Word Poetry (SW)
• Pro Con Challenge (PCC)
• United States Extemporaneous Speaking (USX)

Debate Events

• Big Questions (BQ)
• Congressional Debate (House & Senate) (CON)
• Extemporaneous Debate (XDB)
• Lincoln-Douglas Debate (LD)
• Policy Debate (CX)
• Public Forum Debate (PF)
• World Schools Debate (WS)

Students are presented with prompts related to societal, political, historic or popular culture and, in 20 minutes, prepare a five-minute speech responding to the prompt. Students may consult articles and evidence they gather prior to the contest. At the National Tournament, students may use internet during preparation. Some other tournaments may not. The speech is delivered from memory and no notes are allowed.

About Declamation

About Dramatic Interpretation

About Duo Interpretation

About Expository

About Humorous Interpretation

About Impromptu

Impromptu is a public speaking event where students have seven minutes to select a topic, brainstorm their ideas, outline and deliver a speech. The speech is given without notes and uses an introduction, body, and conclusion. The speech can be light-hearted or serious. It can be based upon prompts that range from nursery rhymes, current events, celebrities, organizations, and more.

An adapted version of Impromptu, Prepared Prompt Speaking, has been used at online tournaments. In Prepared Prompt, students will be given a list of topics prior to the tournament, select one prompt from the official list, prepare a speech, and submit it through the recording process.

Impromptu is a public speaking event that tests a student’s ability to analyze a prompt, process their thoughts, organize the points of the speech, and deliver them in a clear, coherent manner. Students’ logic is extremely important. They must be able to take an abstract idea, such as a fortune from a fortune cookie, and put together a speech that has a thesis and supporting information.

About Informative Speaking

Informative is a speech written by the student with the intent to inform the audience on a topic of significance. Students in informative may use a visual aid. Informative gives students the unique opportunity to showcase their personality while educating the audience. An Informative is not simply an essay about the topic—it is a well researched and organized presentation with evidence, logic, and sometimes humor to convey a message. Topics are varied and interesting. Whether it be a new technological advance the audience is unaware of or a new take on a concept that everyone is familiar with, Informative is the students opportunity to teach the audience. Types of topics and structure vary greatly.

About International Extemp

International Extemporaneous Speaking, typically called International Extemp, is a speech on current International events with limited preparation time. A student’s understanding of important political, economic, and cultural issues is assessed along with critical thinking and analytical skills. Students report to a draw room (often referred to as Extemp prep) where all of the Extempers gather at tables, set out their files, and await their turn to draw topics. Students may access research brought with them to the tournament during the 30-minute preparation period. Some tournaments, including the NSDA National Tournament, will permit students to use the internet to research during preparation time. When prep time is up, the student reports to the competition room to deliver a 7 minute speech. Students have a lot to do in 30 minutes—they must select a question, review research, outline arguments with supporting materials, and practice at least part of the speech before time expires. Many tournaments prohibit the consultation of notes during the speech in which case speech structure and evidence need to be memorized during prep time as well.

Mixed Extemp

Mixed Extemp combines international and domestic issues (as opposed to two separate events like high school). Mixed Extemp is an event at the NSDA Middle School National Tournament. Students are presented with a choice of three questions related to national and international current events. The student has 30 minutes to prepare a seven-minute speech answering the selected question. Students may consult articles and evidence to help with their preparation. The internet may be used during preparation time at the NSDA Middle School National Tournament, though local events may not allow use of internet.

About Original Oratory

About Original Spoken Word Poetry

Students write and perform original poetry to express ideas, experience, or emotion through the creative arrangement of words according to their sound, their rhythm, their meaning.

The maximum time limit is 5 minutes with a 30-second grace period. The delivery must be memorized, and no book or script may be used. No more than 150 words of the original poetry may be direct quotation from any other speech or writing. A successful performer will craft a piece that elicits critical thought, reflection, or emotion. As opposed to traditional Poetry, Spoken Word Poetry is created to be performed aloud and may feature rhythmic flow, vivid imagery, word play, gestures, lyrical elements, and repetition. Use the Getting Started with Original Spoken Word Poetry guide as a helpful tool to explore ways to express thoughts and experiences through poetry.

About Poetry

Poetry is characterized by writing that conveys ideas, experiences, and emotions through language and expression. Often Poetry is very creative in terms of vocabulary and composition. While Poetry may tell a story or develop a character, more often Poetry’s focus on language and form are designed to elicit critical thought, reflection, or emotion. Students may choose what the National Speech & Debate Association refers to as traditional Poetry, which often has a formal meter or rhyme scheme, or nontraditional Poetry, which often has a rhythmic flow but lacks formal rhyme or meter. Poetry is different than Original Spoken Word Poetry in that students in Poetry will perform works written by others. In Poetry, students may chose to perform one long poem or create a program of poetry from one source or multiple sources.

Pro Con Challenge

Students select the National Tournament topic for CX, LD, or PF or a piece of legislation in the Congressional Debate Docket and write a 3-5 minute affirmative speech and a 3-5 minute negative speech on that topic. This event allows students to explore debate topics in a new and exciting way while showing off their writing, research, and delivery skills.

About Progam Oral Interpretation

About Prose

About Storytelling

Storytelling consists of sharing a story with an audience, performed as if the audience were a group of young children. Some tournaments have themes that the story selection must fit in; the National Tournament does not have a theme, and any story selection is acceptable. The story must not exceed five minutes. Students may use a full range of movement to express themselves and may incorporate a chair in a variety of different ways, though the chair may not be used as a prop during the performance. Students may be seated but most commonly performers use a full range of stage space available to them. As there are so many different types of stories that can be performed, it is important to observe rounds to see what other students and teams are using. The Association has final rounds of Storytelling from both the high school and middle school level to review. Local and regional tournaments may vary in the selection of stories performed.

About United States Extemp

About Big Questions Debate

Time limits.

*Each team is entitled to three minutes of prep time during the round.

About Congressional Debate

About Extemporaneous Debate

About Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Lincoln-Douglas Debate typically appeals to individuals who like to debate, but prefer a one-on-one format as opposed to a team or group setting. Additionally, individuals who enjoy LD like exploring questions of how society ought to be. Many people refer to LD Debate as a “values” debate, as questions of morality and justice are commonly examined. Students prepare cases and then engage in an exchange of cross-examinations and rebuttals in an attempt to convince a judge that they are the better debater in the round.

About Policy Debate

About Public Forum Debate

About World Schools Debate

FactChecking the Biden-Trump Debate

In the first debate clash of the 2024 campaign, the two candidates unleashed a flurry of false and misleading statements.

By Robert Farley , Eugene Kiely , D'Angelo Gore , Jessica McDonald , Lori Robertson , Catalina Jaramillo , Saranac Hale Spencer and Alan Jaffe

Posted on June 28, 2024

The much-anticipated first debate of 2024 between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump featured a relentless barrage of false and misleading statements from the two candidates on immigration, the economy, abortion, taxes and more.

• Both candidates erred on Social Security, with Biden incorrectly saying that Trump “wants to get rid” of the program, and Trump falsely alleging that Biden will “wipe out” Social Security due to the influx of people at the border.
• Trump misleadingly claimed that he was “the one that got the insulin down for the seniors,” not Biden. Costs were lowered for some under a limited project by the Trump administration. Biden signed a law capping costs for all seniors with Medicare drug coverage.
• Trump warned that Biden “wants to raise your taxes by four times,” but Biden has not proposed anything like that. Trump was also mostly wrong when he said Biden “wants the Trump tax cuts to expire.” Biden said he would extend them for anyone making under $400,000 a year.
• Biden repeated his misleading claim that billionaires pay an average federal tax rate of 8%. That White House calculation factors in earnings on unsold stock as income.
• Trump repeated his false claim that “everybody,” including all legal scholars, wanted to end Roe v. Wade’s constitutional right to abortion.
• Trump falsely claimed that “the only jobs” Biden “created are for illegal immigrants and bounced back jobs that bounced back from the COVID.” Total nonfarm employment is higher than it was before the pandemic, as is the employment level of native-born workers.
• Biden claimed that Trump oversaw the “largest deficit of any president,” while Trump countered that “we now have the largest deficit” under Biden. The largest budget deficit was under Trump in fiscal year 2020, but that was largely because of emergency spending due to COVID-19.
• Biden misleadingly said that “Black unemployment is the lowest level it has been in a long, long time.” The rate reached a record low in April 2023, and it was low under Trump, too, until the pandemic.
• Biden said Trump called U.S. veterans killed in World War I “suckers and losers,” which Trump called a “made up quote.” The Atlantic reported that, based on anonymous sources. A former Trump chief of staff later seemed to confirm Trump said it.
• Trump claimed that Biden “caused the inflation,” but economists say rising inflation was mostly due to disruptions to the economy caused by the pandemic.
• Trump grossly inflated the number of immigrants who have entered the country during the Biden administration — putting the number at 18 million to 20 million — and he said, without evidence, that many of them are from prisons and mental institutions.
• Trump claimed that “we had the safest border in history” in the “final months” of his presidency. But apprehensions of those trying to cross illegally in the last three full months of his presidency were about 50% higher than in the three months before he took office.
• Biden criticized Trump for presiding over a loss of jobs when he was president, but that loss occurred because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Trump falsely claimed that “some states” run by Democrats allow abortions “after birth.” If it happened, it would be homicide, and that’s illegal.
• Trump made the unsupported claim that the U.S. border with Mexico is “the most dangerous place in the world,” and suggested that it has opened the country to a violent crime wave. The data show a reduction in violent crime in the U.S.
• Trump overstated how much food prices have risen due to inflation. Prices are up by about 20%, not double or quadruple. 
• Trump boasted his administration “had the best environmental numbers ever.” Trump reversed nearly 100 environmental rules limiting pollution. Although greenhouse gas emissions did decline from 2019 to 2020, the EPA said that was due to the impacts of the pandemic on travel and the economy.   
• Biden said he joined the Paris Agreement because “if we reach the 1.5 degrees Celsius, and then … there’s no way back.” Limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees would reduce the damages and losses of global warming, but scientists agree that climate action is still possible after passing the threshold.
• Trump said immigrants crossing the border illegally were living in “luxury hotels.” New York City has provided hotel and motel rooms to migrant families, but there is no evidence that they are being placed in “luxury” hotels. 
• Trump falsely claimed that there was “no terrorism, at all” in the U.S. during his administration. There were several terrorist acts carried out by foreign-born individuals when he was president.
• While talking about international trade, Trump falsely claimed that the U.S. currently has “the largest deficit with China.” In 2023, the trade deficit in goods and services with China was the lowest it has been since 2009.
• Trump wrongly claimed that prior to the pandemic, he had created “the greatest economy in the history of our country.” That’s far from true using economists’ preferred measure — growth in gross domestic product.
• As he has many times before, Trump wrongly claimed, “I gave you the largest tax cut in history.” That’s not true either as a percentage of gross domestic product or in inflation-adjusted dollars.
• Trump contrasted his administration with Biden’s by misleadingly noting that when he left office, the U.S. was “energy independent.” The U.S. continues to export more energy than it imports.

The debate was hosted by CNN in Atlanta on June 27.

Social Security

Biden claimed that Trump “wants to get rid” of Social Security, even though the former president has consistently said he will not cut the program and has advised Republicans against doing so.

Earlier this year, Biden and his campaign based the claim on Trump saying in a  March 11 CNBC interview  that “there is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements in terms of cutting and in terms of also the theft and the bad management of entitlements.” As  we’ve said , in context, instead of reducing benefits, Trump was talking about cutting waste and fraud in those programs — although there’s not enough of that to make the program solvent over the long term.

“I will never do anything that will jeopardize or hurt Social Security or Medicare,” Trump later said in a  March 13 Breitbart interview . “We’ll have to do it elsewhere. But we’re not going to do anything to hurt them.”

During the GOP presidential primary, Trump also  criticized  some of his Republican opponents for proposing to raise the retirement age for Social Security, which budget experts  have said  would reduce scheduled benefits for those affected.

Some critics of Trump have  argued  that he cannot be expected to keep his promise because of his past budget proposals. But,  as we’ve written , Trump did not propose cuts to Social Security retirement benefits.

Meanwhile, Trump claimed during the debate that Biden “is going to single handedly destroy Social Security” because of illegal immigration. “These millions and millions of people coming in, they’re trying to put them on Social Security. He will wipe out Social Security,” Trump said of Biden.

As  we  and  others  have explained before, immigrants who are not authorized to be in the U.S. aren’t eligible for Social Security. In fact, because many such individuals pay into Social Security via payroll taxes but cannot receive benefits, illegal immigrants bolster rather than drain the finances of the program.

In referring to what seniors pay for insulin, Trump misleadingly claimed, “I heard him say before ‘insulin.’ I’m the one that got the insulin down for the seniors. I took care of the seniors.” Insulin costs went down for some beneficiaries under a limited project under Trump; Biden signed a more expansive law affecting all seniors with Medicare drug coverage.

Under Trump, out-of-pocket costs were lowered to $35 for some Medicare Part D beneficiaries under a two-year pilot project in which some insurers could voluntarily reduce the cost for some insulin products. KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research organization,  explained  earlier this month that under this model, in effect from 2021 to 2023, “participating Medicare Part D prescription drug plans covered at least one of each dosage form and type of insulin product at no more than $35 per month,” and “less than half of all Part D plans chose to participate in each year.”

But in 2022, Biden  signed a law  that required all Medicare prescription drug plans to cap all insulin products at $35. The law also capped the out-of-pocket price for insulin that’s covered under Medicare Part B, which covers drugs administered in a health care provider’s office. The caps went into effect last year.

STAT, a news site that covers health care issues,  reported  that the idea for a $35 cap for seniors initially came from Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical company, which proposed it in 2019.

Trump on Biden Tax Plan

“He’s the only one I know he wants to raise your taxes by four times,” Trump said of Biden. “He wants to raise everybody’s taxes by four times. He wants the Trump tax cuts to expire. So everybody … [is] going to pay four to five times –  nobody ever heard of this before.”

Trump regularly warns of massive tax hikes for “everybody,” should Biden be reelected. That doesn’t jibe with anything Biden has proposed.

In his more than three years as president, Biden’s  major tax changes  have included setting a  minimum corporate tax rate  of 15% and lowering taxes for some families by  expanding the child tax credit  and, for a time, making it fully refundable, meaning families could still receive a refund even if they no longer owe additional taxes.

As  we wrote  in 2020, when Trump made a similar claim, Biden proposed during that campaign to raise an additional $4 trillion in taxes over the next decade, although the increases would have fallen mainly on very high-income earners and corporations. The plan would not have doubled or tripled people’s taxes at any income level (on average), according to analyses of Biden’s plan by the  Penn Wharton Budget Model ,  the Tax Policy Center  and  the Tax Foundation .

In March 2023, the TPC’s Howard Gleckman  wrote  that Biden proposed a 2024 budget that would, on average, increase after-tax incomes for low-income households and “leave them effectively unchanged for middle-income households.” The Tax Policy Center noted, “The top 1 percent, with at least roughly $1 million in income, would pay an average of $300,000 more than under current law, dropping their after-tax incomes by 14 percent.”

This March, Biden released his  fiscal year 2025 budget , which contains many of the same proposals and adds a few new wrinkles. But it still  does not contain  any “colossal tax hikes” on typical American families, as Trump has said.

Biden’s latest plan proposes — as he has in the past — to increase the corporate income tax rate from 21% to 28%, and to  restore  the top individual tax rate of 39.6% from the current rate of 37%. It would also increase the corporate minimum tax rate from 15% to 21% for companies that report average profits in excess of $1 billion over a three-year period. And the plan would impose a 25% minimum tax on very wealthy individuals. The plan also proposes to extend the expanded child tax credit enacted in the American Rescue Plan through 2025, and to make the child tax credit fully refundable on a permanent basis.

Trump is also mostly wrong that Biden “wants the Trump tax cuts to expire.”

As he has said since the 2020 campaign, Biden’s FY 2025 budget vows not to increase taxes on people earning less than $400,000.

In order to keep that pledge, Biden would have to extend most of the individual income tax provisions enacted in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that are set to expire at the end of 2025. And that’s what Biden says he would do — but  only for  individual filers earning less than $400,000 and married couples making less than $450,000. (In order to pass the TCJA with a simple Senate majority, Republicans wrote the law to have most of the individual income tax changes  expire after 2025 .)

The Biden budget plan “would raise marginal income tax rates faced by higher earners and corporations while expanding tax credits for lower-income households,” according to a Tax Foundation  analysis  of the tax provisions in Biden’s budget. “The budget would redistribute income from high earners to low earners. The bottom 60 percent of earners would see increases in after-tax income in 2025, while the top 40 percent of earners would see decreases.”

Biden on Taxes Paid by Billionaires

In arguing that wealthy households should pay a minimum tax, Biden repeated his misleading claim that billionaires pay an average federal tax rate of 8%.

“We have a thousand … billionaires in America, and what’s happening?”  Biden said . “They’re in a situation where they in fact pay 8.2% in taxes.”

That’s not the average rate in the current tax system; it’s a figure  calculated  by the White House and factors in earnings on unsold stock as income. When only considering income, the top-earning taxpayers, on average, pay higher tax rates than those in lower income groups, as  we’ve written  before.

The top 0.1% of earners pay an average rate of 25.1% in federal income and payroll taxes,  according to  an analysis by the Tax Policy Center in October 2022 for the 2023 tax year.

The point that Biden tried to make is that earnings on assets, such as stock, currently are not taxed until that asset is sold, which is when the earnings become subject to capital gains taxes. Until stocks and assets are sold, the earnings are referred to as “unrealized” gains. Unrealized gains, the White House  has argued , could go untaxed forever if wealthy people hold on to them and transfer them on to heirs when they die.

Roe v. Wade

As he has  before , Trump wildly exaggerated the popularity of ending Roe v. Wade — even going so far as to claim that it was “something that everybody wanted.”

“51 years ago, you had Roe v. Wade and everybody wanted to get it back to the states,”  he said , referring to the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion, which was  overturned  in 2022.

Trump:  Everybody, without exception: Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives. Everybody wanted it back — religious leaders. And what I did is I put three great Supreme Court justices on the court and they happened to vote in favor of killing Roe v. Wade, and moving it back to the states. This is something that everybody wanted. Now 10 years ago or so they started talking about how many weeks and how many this and getting into other things. But every legal scholar throughout the world — the most respected — wanted it brought back to the states. I did that.

In fact, a majority of Americans have disagreed with ending Roe v. Wade, including plenty of legal scholars, as we’ve explained  before . While some scholars criticized aspects of the legal reasoning in Roe, it did not necessarily mean they wanted the ruling overturned. Legal experts told us that Trump’s claim was “utter nonsense” and “patently absurd.”

Trump Wrong on Jobs

After Biden talked about job creation during his administration, Trump falsely claimed that “the only jobs [Biden] created are for illegal immigrants and bounced back jobs that bounced back from the COVID.”

In fact, as of May,  total nonfarm employment  in the U.S. had gone up about 6.2 million from the pre-pandemic peak in February 2020, according to figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The increase is about 15.6 million if you count from when Biden took office in January 2021 until now — but that would include some jobs that were temporarily lost during the pandemic and then came back during the economic recovery.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that only “illegal immigrants” have seen employment gains.

Since Biden became president in January 2021, employment of U.S.-born workers has increased more than employment of foreign-born workers, a category that includes anyone who wasn’t a U.S. citizen at birth, as we’ve written before . BLS says the  foreign-born  population includes “legally-admitted immigrants, refugees, temporary residents such as students and temporary workers, and undocumented immigrants.” There is no employment breakdown for just people in the U.S. illegally.

In looking at employment since the pre-pandemic peak, the employment level of  foreign-born workers  was up by about 3.2 million, from roughly 27.7 million in February 2020 to nearly 30.9 million in May. Employment for the  U.S.-born population  increased by about 125,000 — from nearly 130.3 million in February 2020 to 130.4 million, as of May.

Conflicting Budget Deficit Claims

Biden and Trump accused each other of presiding over the largest budget deficit in the U.S.

After talking about Trump’s plans for additional tax cuts, Biden said Trump already had the “largest deficit of any president in American history.” When he got a chance to respond, Trump said, “We now have the largest deficit in the history of our country under this guy,” referring to Biden.

Biden is correct: The  largest budget deficit  on record was about $3.1 trillion in fiscal year 2020 under Trump. However, that was  primarily  because of trillions of dollars in emergency funding that both congressional Republicans and Democrats approved to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Before the pandemic, the largest budget deficit under Trump was about $1 trillion in fiscal 2019.

Meanwhile, the most recent budget deficit under Biden was about $1.7 trillion in fiscal 2023. As of June, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office  projected  that the deficit for fiscal 2024, which ends on Sept. 30, would be about $2 trillion.

Black Unemployment

Biden boasted that on his watch, “Black unemployment is the lowest level it has been in a long, long time.”

It’s true that the unemployment rate for Black or African American people reached a record low of 4.8% in April 2023, but it is currently 6.1%,  according to  the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which has data going back to 1972.

Also, the unemployment rate was low under Trump, too, until the pandemic.

Under Trump, the  unemployment rate for Black Americans  went down to 5.3% in August 2019 – the lowest on record at that time. It shot up to 16.9% in April 2020, when the economic effects of the pandemic took hold. When Trump left office in January 2021, amid the pandemic, the rate was 9.3%.

The rate has been 6% or less in only 29 months since 1972, and it happened only under two presidents: 21 times under Biden and eight times under Trump.

‘Suckers and Losers’

Biden  said  Trump called U.S. veterans killed in World War I “suckers and losers,” which Trump called a “made up quote … that was in a third-rate magazine.”

It was first reported by a magazine — the Atlantic — but Trump’s former chief of staff,  John F. Kelly , a retired four-star Marine general, later seemed to confirm it.

Biden was referring to a trip Trump made to France in November 2018, where he reportedly declined to visit the  Aisne-Marne American Cemetery  near the location of the Battle of Belleau Wood. “He was standing with his four-star general and he told him, ‘I don’t want to go in there because they’re a bunch of losers and suckers.’”

The Atlantic  wrote  about this alleged incident in 2020, citing unnamed sources. The magazine wrote that Trump made his remark about “losers” when he declined to visit the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery, and his remark about “suckers” during that same trip.

The Atlantic, Sept. 3, 2020:  In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit, Trump said, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” In a separate conversation on the same trip, Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed.

In October 2023, Kelly – who was on that trip and visited the Aisne-Marne Cemetery — gave a  statement to CNN  that seemed to confirm those remarks. CNN published Kelly’s statement.

CNN, Oct. 3, 2023:  “What can I add that has not already been said?” Kelly said, when asked if he wanted to weigh in on his former boss in light of recent comments made by other former Trump officials. “A person that thinks those who defend their country in uniform, or are shot down or seriously wounded in combat, or spend years being tortured as POWs are all ‘suckers’ because ‘there is nothing in it for them.’ A person that did not want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because ‘it doesn’t look good for me.’ A person who demonstrated open contempt for a Gold Star family – for all Gold Star families – on TV during the 2016 campaign, and rants that our most precious heroes who gave their lives in America’s defense are ‘losers’ and wouldn’t visit their graves in France.”

Trump said, “We had 19 people who said I didn’t say it.” One of those who said that he didn’t hear Trump make those remarks is John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser who was also on the trip and said he was there when the decision was made not to visit the cemetery.

“I didn’t hear that,” Bolton  told the New York Times  in 2020 after the magazine story first appeared. “I’m not saying he didn’t say them later in the day or another time, but I was there for that discussion.”

Biden Misleads on Jobs

Biden ignored the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic when he criticized Trump for employment going down over Trump’s time in office.

“He’s the only president other than Herbert Hoover that lost more jobs than he had when he began,” Biden said.

Job growth during Trump’s term was positive until the economy lost 20.5 million jobs in April 2020, as efforts to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus led to business closures and layoffs. By the time Trump left office in January 2021, employment had partly rebounded, but was still 9.4 million jobs below the February 2020 peak,  according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics .

Trump repeatedly claimed that Biden “caused the inflation” and that “I gave him a country with no essentially no inflation. It was perfect. It was so good.”

It’s true that inflation was relatively modest when Trump was president. The  Consumer Price Index rose 7.6%  under Trump’s four years — continuing a long period of low inflation. And inflation has been high over the entirety of Biden’s time in office. The  Consumer Price Index  for all items rose 19.3% between January 2021 and May.

For a time, it was the worst inflation in decades. The 12 months ending in June 2022 saw a 9% increase in the CPI (before seasonal adjustment), which the  Bureau of Labor Statistics said  was the biggest such increase since the 12 months ending in November 1981.

Inflation has moderated more recently. The CPI  rose  3.3% in the 12 months ending in May, the most recent figure available.

Although Trump claims that Biden is entirely responsible for massive inflation, economists  we have spoken to  say Biden’s policies are only partly to blame. The economists placed the lion’s share of the blame for inflation on disruptions to the economy caused by the pandemic, including supply shortages, labor issues and increased consumer spending on goods. Inflation was then worsened by Russia’s attack on Ukraine, which drove up oil and gas prices, experts told us.

Indeed, inflation has been a  worldwide problem  post-pandemic.

However, many economists say Biden’s policies — particularly aggressive stimulus spending early in his presidency to offset some of the economic damage caused by the pandemic — played a modest role.

Jason Furman , a former economic adviser to President Barack Obama and now a Harvard University professor, told us in June 2022 that he estimated about 1 to 4 percentage points worth of the inflation was due to Biden’s stimulus spending in the  American Rescue Plan  — a $1.9 trillion pandemic relief measure that included $1,400 checks to most Americans; expanded unemployment benefits; and money for schools, small businesses and states.  Mark Zandi , chief economist of Moody’s — whose work is often cited by the White House — said the impact of the stimulus measure now “has largely faded.”

Economists note that the American Rescue Plan came after two other pandemic stimulus laws enacted under Trump that were  worth  a  total  of $3.1 trillion. That spending, too, could have contributed to inflation.

Immigrants Entering U.S. Under Biden

Trump grossly inflated the number of immigrants who have entered the country during the Biden administration — putting the number at 18 million to 20 million. The number, by our calculation, is about a third of that. Trump also claimed, without evidence, that many of those immigrants are from prisons and mental institutions.

“It could be 18, it could be 19, and even 20 million people,” Trump said of the immigrants who have entered the U.S. during the Biden administration. Later in the debate, Trump asked Biden why there had been no accountability “for allowing 18 million people many from prisons, many from mental institutions” into the country.

That’s a greatly exaggerated number. We took a deep dive into the immigration numbers  in February , and again in  mid-June , and we came up with an estimate of at most a third of Trump’s number.

Here’s the breakdown:

Department of Homeland Security data show nearly 8 million encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border between February 2021, the month after Biden took office, and May, the last month of available  statistics . That’s a figure that includes both the 6.9 million apprehensions of migrants caught between legal ports of entry – the number typically used for illegal immigration – and nearly 1.1 million encounters of migrants who arrived at ports of entry without authorization to enter the U.S.

DHS also has comprehensive data, through February, of the initial processing of these encounters. That information shows 2.9 million were removed by Customs and Border Protection and 3.2 million were released with notices to appear in immigration court or report to Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the future, or other classifications, such as parole. (Encounters do not represent the total number of people, because some people attempt multiple crossings. For example, the recidivism rate was 27% in fiscal year 2021,  according to the most recent figures  from CBP.) 

As  we’ve explained before , there are also estimates for “gotaways,” or migrants who crossed the border illegally and evaded the authorities. Based on an average annual apprehension rate of 78%, which DHS provided to us, that would mean there were an estimated 1.8 million gotaways from February 2021 to February 2024. The gotaways plus those released with court notices or other designations would total about 5 million.

There were also 407,500 transfers of unaccompanied children to the Department of Health and Human Services and 883,000 transfers to ICE. The ICE transfers include those who are then booked into ICE custody, enrolled in “ alternatives to detention ” (which include technological monitoring) or released by ICE. We don’t know how many of those were released into the country with a court notice. But even if we include those figures, it still doesn’t get us to anywhere near 18 to 20 million.

And we should note that these figures do not reflect whether a migrant may ultimately be allowed to stay or will be deported, particularly since there is a yearslong backlog of immigration court cases.

Also, as we have  written   repeatedly , Trump has provided no credible support for his incendiary claim that countries are emptying their prisons and mental institutions and sending those people to the U.S. Experts tell us they have seen no evidence to substantiate it.

Earlier this month, we looked into  Trump’s claim as it relates to Venezuela, because Trump has repeatedly cited a drop in crime there to support his claim about countries emptying their prisons and sending inmates to the U.S. Reported crime is trending down in Venezuela, but crime experts in the country say there are numerous reasons for that — including an enormous out-migration of citizens and a consolidation of gang activity — and they have nothing to do with sending criminals to the U.S.

“We have no evidence that the Venezuelan government is emptying the prisons or mental hospitals to send them out of the country, whether to the USA or any other country,” Roberto Briceño-León, founder and director of the independent Venezuelan Observatory of Violence, told us.

Border Under Trump

Trump claimed that “we had the safest border in history” in the “final months” of his presidency, according to Border Patrol. But according to  data  provided by Customs and Border Protection, apprehensions of those trying to cross illegally into the U.S. in the last three full months of Trump’s presidency were about 50% higher than in the  three months  before he took office.

In fact, as we wrote in our piece, “ Trump’s Final Numbers ,” illegal border crossings, as measured by  apprehensions at the southwest border , were 14.7% higher in Trump’s final year in office compared with the last full year before he was sworn in.

But these statistics tell only part of the story. The number of apprehensions fluctuated wildly during Trump’s presidency, from a  monthly  low of 11,127 in April 2017 to a high of 132,856 in May 2019.

Back in April,  we wrote  about a misleading chart that Trump showed to the crowd during a speech in Green Bay, Wisconsin. “See the arrow on the bottom? That was my last week in office,” Trump said. “That was the lowest number in history.” But Trump was wrong on both points.

The arrow was pointing to apprehensions in April 2020, when apprehensions plummeted during the height of the pandemic.

“The pandemic was responsible for a near-complete halt to all forms of global mobility in 2020, due to a combination of border restrictions imposed by countries around the world,”  Michelle Mittelstadt , director of communications for the Migration Policy Institute, told us.

After apprehensions reached a pandemic low in April 2020, they rose every month after that. In his last months in office, apprehensions had more than quadrupled from that pandemic low and were higher than the month he took office.

Trump falsely claimed that “some states” run by Democrats allow abortions “after birth.” As  we have written , that’s simply false. If it happened, it would be  homicide , and that’s  illegal .

“No such procedure exists,” the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists  says  on its website.

The former president  has wrongly said  that abortions after birth were permitted under Roe v. Wade — the Supreme Court ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion until it was  reversed  in 2022. It was not.

Under Roe, states could outlaw abortion after fetal viability, but with exceptions for risks to the life or health of the mother. Many Republicans  have objected  to the health stipulation, saying it would allow abortion for any reason. Democrats say exceptions are needed to protect the mother from medical risks. We should note, late-term abortions  are rare . According to the  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , less than 1% of abortions in the U.S. in 2020 were performed after 21 weeks gestational time.

In June 2022, after Trump had appointed three conservative justices to the Supreme Court, the court  overturned  Roe in a 5-4 ruling. Biden  supports  restoring Roe as “the law of the land,” as he said in his State of the Union address in March.

Trump Calls Border ‘The Most Dangerous Place’

In his focus on the U.S. border with Mexico, Trump  made  the unsupported claim that it is “the most dangerous place in the world.”

It’s true that unauthorized border crossings  can be dangerous  — 895 people died while doing so in fiscal year 2022, which is the most recent year for which the Customs and Border Protection has  data . Most of those deaths were heat related.

And the International Organization for Migration called calendar year 2022 “the deadliest year on record” for migration in the Americas, with a total of 1,457 fatalities throughout South America, Central America, North America and the Caribbean. The organization began tracking deaths and disappearances related to migration in 2014.

“Most of these fatalities are related to the lack of options for safe and regular mobility, which increases the likelihood that people see no other choice but to opt for irregular migration routes that put their lives at risk,” the organization said in its  2022 report .

Trump suggested that the border crossings imperil Americans when he went on to say, “these killers are coming into our country, and they are raping and killing women.”

But, as  we’ve written before , FBI data show a downward trend in violent crime in the U.S., and there’s no evidence to support the claim that there’s been a crime wave driven by immigrants.

Crime analyst Jeff Asher, co-founder of the New Orleans firm  AH Datalytics , told us in May that there’s no evidence in the data to indicate a migrant crime wave.

Similarly, Jeffrey Butts, director of the Research and Evaluation Center at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice,  told the New York Times  in February there was no evidence of a migrant crime wave in New York City after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott began busing migrants there in April 2022.

“I would interpret a ‘wave’ to mean something significant, meaningful and a departure from the norm,” Butts said at the time. “So far, what we have are individual incidents of crime.”

Also, it’s worth noting that the Institute for Economics and Peace’s  Global Peace Index  — which measures the safety of 163 countries based on 23 indicators, including violent crime, deaths from internal conflict and terrorism — said the “least peaceful country” is Afghanistan, followed by Yemen, Syria, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

In discussing inflation, the former president embellished the degree to which food prices have increased.

“It’s killing people. They can’t buy groceries anymore,” Trump said. “You look at the cost of food, where it’s doubled, tripled and quadrupled. They can’t live.”

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Consumer Price Index for food has  gone up 17.5%  — not 100% to 300% — since January 2021. The Consumer Price Index specifically for groceries, or “food at home,” has  risen 20.8% .

Climate Change

During a short exchange about climate change, Trump boasted that during his tenure “we had the best environmental numbers ever.” It is not clear what he was referring to exactly, but he said if elected president he wanted to have “absolutely immaculate clean water and I want absolutely clean air — and we had it.” He might have been referring to a talking point that Andrew Wheeler, Trump’s former Environmental Protection Agency administrator, had recommended Trump mention during the debate: “CO2 emissions went down” during his administration, as  the Hill reported . 

Greenhouse gas emissions, which are responsible for global warming,  did decline  from 2019 to 2020. But that was “largely due to the impacts of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on travel and economic activity,” according to the EPA. Emissions increased by 5.7% from 2020 to 2022, once the economy started getting reactivated again, the agency said. 

According to an  analysis by the New York Times , Trump’s administration reversed nearly 100 environmental rules, including 28 regulations on air pollution and emissions, and eight rules that limited water pollution. Reportedly, Trump  recently asked  oil executives and lobbyists to donate to his campaign, promising he would roll back other environmental rules that hurt fossil fuel interests. 

“He’s not done a damn thing for the environment,” Biden said in response, pointing out that Trump had  pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement . “I immediately joined it because if we reach the 1.5 degrees Celsius … there’s no way back,” Biden said. 

As  we’ve reported , although reaching 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, of warming comes with a number of very serious impacts, it is not a point of no return. Scientists agree that every increment of global warming increases these negative impacts, but 1.5 degrees is not a magic number after which everything is doomed, they say. 

Immigrants Living in Hotels

During the debate, Trump  mentioned   twice  that while immigrants crossing the border illegally were “living in luxury hotels,” in New York City and other cities “our veterans are living in the street.”

While it is true that New York City has  provided   hotel   rooms  to migrant families as a temporary shelter solution, there is no evidence that immigrants are being placed in “luxury” hotels. 

In 2023, Mayor Eric Adams  signed  a $275 million contract with the Hotel Association of New York City to house 5,000 migrants. The deal was intended to help  struggling hotels  impacted by the pandemic and did not expect to include luxury hotels. “There are no gold-plated rooms that are being given away contrary to any reports that you may have seen,” the association president  told NY1  at the time. In January, the city  signed  another $77 million contract to shelter migrant families in hotels. 

In April, social media posts falsely claimed immigrants had stormed New York City Hall to demand luxury hotel accommodations. But as the  Associated Press reported , the immigrants were there for a hearing about racial inequities in shelter and immigrant services. 

In 2023, the number of veterans experiencing homelessness increased 7.4% from 2022, according to  data  from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. But homelessness among veterans has been declining in recent years, with a 4% overall reduction within the last three years alone. 

Terrorist Attacks Under Trump

While talking about Iran and terrorism, Trump falsely claimed that “you had no terror, at all, during my administration.” As  we’ve written , there were several acts of terrorism carried out by foreign-born individuals when Trump was in office.

For example, in October 2017, Sayfullo Saipov  used  a truck to run down people in New York City. He killed eight people,  including  Americans and tourists, in an attack carried out on behalf of the Islamic State.

Then in December 2017, Akayed Ullah  detonated  a homemade pipe bomb he was wearing inside a New York City subway station. Ullah  told  authorities he did it in response to U.S. airstrikes against the Islamic State in Syria and other places.

Then in  December 2019 , Second Lt. Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, a member of the Royal Saudi Air Force, shot 11 people at Florida’s Naval Air Station Pensacola, killing three U.S. sailors. Trump’s own attorney general, William Barr,  called  it an act of terrorism in January 2020. “The evidence shows that the shooter was motivated by jihadist ideology,” Barr said in a statement.

China Trade Deficit

When discussing U.S. trade relations with China, Trump said “we have the largest deficit with China.” That’s false, as  we’ve written .

In 2023, the U.S. had a trade deficit with China in goods and services of roughly $252 billion,  according to  revised figures the Bureau of Economic Analysis  released  in early June. The deficit in goods trading was about $279 billion which was partially offset by a roughly $27 billion surplus in the trading of  services  — which can include travel, transportation, finance and intellectual property.

The trade gap with China last year was the lowest it had been since 2009, when it was $220 billion.

In fact, according to BEA data going back to 1999, the highest total U.S.-China trade deficit in goods and services was about $378 billion in 2018 — when Trump was president. Under Biden, the highest trade deficit with China was $366 billion in 2022.

Not ‘Greatest Economy’ Under Trump

Trump falsely said that prior to the pandemic, the U.S. had “the greatest economy in the history of our country. … Everything was locked in good.”

Trump’s boast about creating the “greatest economy in history” is ubiquitous in his campaign speeches. And it’s not true, at least not by the objective measure typically used to gauge the health of the economy.

As  we have written , economists generally measure a nation’s health by the growth of its  inflation-adjusted gross domestic product . Under Trump, growth was modest. Real GDP in Trump’s four years grew annually by 2.5% in 2017, 3% in 2018 and 2.5% in 2019 — before the economy went into a tailspin during the pandemic in 2020, when real GDP declined by 2.2%,  according to  the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

So, in the best year under Trump, U.S. real GDP grew annually by 3%. By contrast, the nation’s economy grew at a faster annual rate  48 times  and under every president before and after Trump dating to 1930, except Barack Obama and Herbert Hoover. The economy grew at more than 3% six of Ronald Reagan’s eight years, including 7.2% in 1984, and it grew 5% or more 10 times under Franklin D. Roosevelt, including 18.9% in 1942.  Under Biden , the GDP grew by 5.8% in 2021 — a post COVID-19 bounce-back — by 1.9% in 2022 and 2.5% in 2023.

Trump’s Was Not Largest Tax Cut in History

As he has many times before, Trump wrongly claimed, “I gave you the largest tax cut in history.” But saying this over and over, as Trump has for years, doesn’t make it any more true.

As  we have been writing  even before the 2017  Tax Cuts and Jobs Act  was enacted into law, while the law provided tax relief to nearly all Americans, it was not the largest tax cut in U.S. history either as a percentage of gross domestic product (the measure preferred by economists) or in inflation-adjusted dollars.

According to a Tax Policy Center  analysis , the law reduced the individual income taxes owed by Americans by about $1,260 on average in 2018. It also reduced the top corporate tax rate from  35% to 21% , beginning in January 2018.

The law signed by Trump was initially projected to cost $1.49 trillion over 10 years,  according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation . It could end up costing substantially more if individual tax provisions are extended past 2025. Over the first four years, the average annual cost was estimated to be $185 billion. That was about 0.9% of  gross domestic product  in 2018.

That’s nowhere close to President Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cut, which was 2.89% of GDP over a four-year average. That’s according to a  2013 Treasury Department analysis  on the revenue effects of major tax legislation. Five more tax measures since 1940 had an impact larger than 1% of GDP, and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget  includes  a 1921 measure as also being larger than the 2017 plan. That’s eighth place for Trump’s “biggest tax cut in our history.”

In inflation-adjusted dollars, the Trump-era tax cut is also less than the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which comes in at No. 1 with a $320.6 billion cost over a four-year average. And it’s less than tax reductions in 2010 ($210 billion) and 1981 ($208 billion).

Energy Independence

Trump boasted, as he  often does , that “on Jan. 6 [2021], we were energy independent,” implying that’s no longer the case under Biden. But by Trump’s definition, the country remains energy independent.

To be clear, under Trump, the U.S. never stopped  importing  sources of energy,  including crude oil , from other countries. What he likely means is that the country either  produced  more energy than it consumed, or  exported  more energy than it imported. During Trump’s presidency, after years trending in that direction, the U.S. did hit a tipping point where exports of primary energy exceeded energy imports from foreign sources in 2019 and 2020 — the first times that had happened since 1952,  according to  the U.S. Energy Information Administration. 

But contrary to Trump’s suggestion, that has continued in the Biden presidency. The U.S., during Biden’s presidency, has  exported  more energy,  including petroleum , than it imported, and it has  produced  more energy than it consumed. Also, the U.S. is producing record amounts of  oil  and  natural gas  under Biden.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through  our “Donate” page . If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “ Unemployment Rate – Black or African American .” Data extracted 27 Jun 2024.

Robertson, Lori. “ Biden’s Tax Rate Comparison for Billionaires and Schoolteachers .” FactCheck.org. 16 Feb 2023.

“ Average Effective Federal Tax Rates – All Tax Units, By Expanded Cash Income Percentile, 2023 .” Tax Policy Center. 14 Oct 2022.

Goldberg, Jeffrey. “ Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’. ” 3 Sep 2020.

Baker, Peter and Maggie Haberman. “ Trump Faces Uproar Over Reported Remarks Disparaging Fallen Soldiers .” 4 Sep 2020.

Tapper, Jake. “ Exclusive: John Kelly goes on the record to confirm several disturbing stories about Trump .” CNN. 3 Oct 2023.

Leiserson, Greg and Danny Yagan. “ What Is the Average Federal Individual Income Tax Rate on the Wealthiest Americans? ” White House. 23 Sep 2021.

Budryk, Zack. “ Trump posts climate talking points online before debate with Biden ”. The Hill. 27 Jun 2024. 

“ Climate Change Indicators: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .” EPA. Updated 27 Jun 2024. 

Popovich, Nadja, et al. “ The Trump Administration Rolled Back More Than 100 Environmental Rules. Here’s the Full List. ” The New York Times. 20 Jan 2021. 

Friedman,Lisa, et al. “ At a Dinner, Trump Assailed Climate Rules and Asked $1 Billion From Big Oil. ” The New York Times. 9 May 2024. 

McGrath, Matt. “ Climate change: US formally withdraws from Paris agreement .” BBC. 4 Nov 2020.

Jaramillo, Catalina. “ Warming Beyond 1.5 C Harmful, But Not a Point of No Return, as Biden Claims .” FactCheck.org. 27 Apr 2023. 

Zraick, Karen. “ How Manhattan Hotels Became Refuges for Thousands of Migrants .” New York Times. 23 Mar 2023.

Izaguirre, Anthony. “ New York City limiting migrant families with children to 60-day shelter stays to ease strain on city. ” AP. 16 Oct 2023.

Goldin, Melissa. “ No, immigrants did not storm New York City Hall in pursuit of luxury hotel rooms. ” 17 Apr 2024.

Lazar, David. “ Mayor signs $275 million deal with hotels to house migrants .” Spectrum News NY1. 15 Jan 2023. 

Nahmias, Laura and Fola Akinnibi. “ NYC Pays Over $300 a Night for Budget Hotel Rooms for Migrants .” Bloomberg. 9 Jun 2023. 

Adcroft, Patrick and Spectrum News Staff. “ New York City signs $77M contract with hotels to house migrant families .” Spectrum News. 24 Jan 2024. 

Diaz, Monica. “ Veteran homelessness increased by 7.4% in 2023. ” VA News. 15 Dec 2023.

Robertson, Lori. “ Trump’s False Claim About Roe .” FactCheck.org. 9 Apr 2024.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Food at Home in U.S. City Average . Retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Accessed 27 Jun 2024.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: Food in U.S. City Average . Retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Accessed 27 Jun 2024.

Farley, Robert. “ Trump’s Comments About ‘Cutting’ Entitlements in Context .” FactCheck.org. 15 Mar 2024.

Jaffe, Alan. “ Posts Misrepresent Immigrants’ Eligibility for Social Security Numbers, Benefits .” FactCheck.org. 26 Apr 2024.

Kessler, Glenn. “ No, Donald Trump, migrants aren’t ‘killing’ Social Security and Medicare .” Washington Post. 26 Mar 2024.

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.  All Employees, Total Nonfarm . Accessed 27 Jun 2024.

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.  Employment Level – Foreign Born . Accessed 27 Jun 2024.

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.  Employment Level – Native Born . Accessed 27 Jun 2024.

Robertson, Lori and D’Angelo Gore. “ FactChecking Trump’s Immigration-Related Claims in Phoenix and Las Vegas .” 17 June 2024.

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.  Federal Surplus or Deficit . Accessed 27 Jun 2024.

Congressional Budget Office. “ An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2024 to 2034 .” Jun 2024.

Gore, D’Angelo and Robert Farley. “ FactChecking Trump’s Iowa Victory Speech .” 18 Jan 2024.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs. “ Sayfullo Saipov Charged With Terrorism and Murder in Aid of Racketeering in Connection With Lower Manhattan Truck Attack .” Press release. 21 Nov 2017.

U.S. Attorneys Office, Southern District of New York. “ Akayed Ullah Sentenced To Life In Prison For Bombing New York City Subway Station In 2017 On Behalf Of ISIS .” Press release. 22 Apr 2021.

LaForgia, Michael and Eric Schmitt. “ The Lapses That Let a Saudi Extremist Shoot Up a U.S. Navy Base .” New York Times. 21 Jun 2020.

Robertson, Lori. “ Familiar Claims in a Familiar Presidential Race .” FactCheck.org. 11 Apr 2024.

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. “ Joint Statement from Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council & the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees .” 12 Nov 2020.

Cummings, William, Garrison, Joey and Sergent, Jim. “ By the numbers: President Donald Trump’s failed efforts to overturn the election .” USA Today. 06 Jan 2021.

Election Law at Ohio State. “ Major Pending Election Cases .” Accessed 28 Jun 2024.

GovInfo.gov.  Transcript of hearing before the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.  13 Jun 2022.

Kiely, Eugene. “ Trump Ignored Aides, Repeated False Fraud Claims .” FactCheck.org. 14 Jun 2022.

Robertson, Lori. “ Breaking Down the Immigration Figures. ” FactCheck.org. 27 Feb 2024.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  Southwest Land Border Encounters.  Accessed 28 Jun 2024.

Department of Homeland Security. “ Alternatives to Detention .” Accessed 28 Jun 2024.

Farley, Robert. “ Trump’s Unfounded ‘Colossal’ Tax Hike Warning .” FactCheck.org. 17 Apr 2024.

Penn Wharton Budget Model. “ The Updated Biden Tax Plan .” 10 Mar 2020.

Tax Policy Center. “ An Analysis of Former Vice President Biden’s Tax Proposals .” 05 Mar 2020.

Watson, Garrett, and Li, Huaqun. “ Details and Analysis of President Joe Biden’s Campaign Tax Plan .” Tax Foundation. 22 Oct 2020.

White House Website.  Biden’s Proposed Fiscal Year 2025 Budget . Accessed 28 Jun 2024.

Kiely, Eugene. “ A Guide to the Tax Changes .” FactCheck.org. 20 Dec 2017.

Tax Foundation. “ Details and Analysis of President Biden’s Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Proposal. ” 21 Jun 2024.

Congress.gov.  Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.  Introduced 20 Dec 2017.

Joint Committee on Taxation. “ Estimated Revenue Effects Of H.R. 1, The ‘Tax Cuts And Jobs Act.’ ” 06 Nov. 2017.

Gambino, Lauren, et al. “ The unprecedented situation at the US-Mexico border – visualized .” Guardian. 7 Feb 2024.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  Border Rescues and Mortality Data . Updated 29 Mar 2024.

International Organization for Migration.  The Americas — Annual Regional Overview . 2022.

Farley, Robert. “ Trump’s Bogus Attack on FBI Crime Statistics .” FactCheck.org. 3 Mar 2024.

Institute for Economics & Peace.  Global Peace Index 2023 . June 2023.

For the claim about Trump and the national debt:

Fiscal Data.  Debt to the Penny . fiscaldata.treasury.gov. Updated 27 Jun 2024.

Treasury Direct.  FAQs About the Public Debt . Accessed 27 Jun 2024.

Robertson, Lori. “ Biden Leaves Misleading Impression on U.S. Debt .” FactCheck.org. 13 Aug 2021.

Congressional Budget Office. “ The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2017 TO 2027 .” Jan 2017.

Cubanski, Juliette and Tricia Neuman. “ The Facts About the $35 Insulin Copay Cap in Medicare .” KFF. 12 Jun 2024.

Watch CBS News

The Supreme Court ruled that Trump has immunity for official acts. Here's what happens next.

By Robert Legare , Melissa Quinn , Graham Kates

Updated on: July 1, 2024 / 9:39 PM EDT / CBS News

Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former presidents are entitled to immunity from federal prosecution for official acts, a landmark decision that has major ramifications for former President Donald Trump.

The ruling dealt primarily with special counsel Jack Smith's case against Trump in Washington, D.C. While the court's 6-3 decision made some specific determinations about what conduct alleged in Smith's indictment cannot be brought to trial, the majority left much of the decision-making up to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing that case. Chutkan will have to decide whether much of the alleged conduct in the indictment was "official" or "unofficial" in nature. 

Trump faces a second federal case in Florida related to classified documents, and state charges in Georgia dealing with the 2020 election. He was also convicted on state charges in New York in May, and faces sentencing next week. The court did not address those cases in its decision, and the potential impact on each is less clear. He has pleaded not guilty on all charges.

Here's what the ruling could mean for each of Trump's criminal cases:

Trump's 2020 election case

The Supreme Court declined to dismiss the entirety of Smith's case against Trump in Washington, where he is charged with four counts stemming from his conduct after the 2020 election. Instead, the six conservative justices decided to send the case down to Chutkan's court and instructed her to review the indictment under the legal standard they established. This will all but certainly result in more hearings and legal briefs on each of the issues, followed by likely appeals that will further delay the start of the trial. The case has been on hold for months as the immunity issue weaved its way through the courts.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts divided presidential conduct into three categories: official acts that are part of presidents' "core constitutional powers"; other official acts that are outside their "exclusive authority"; and unofficial acts. Presidents have "absolute" immunity for the first category, "presumptive" immunity for the second and no immunity for the third.

Roberts wrote that the allegations in the indictment that accused Trump of working with Justice Department officials to push for investigations into certain state election results are off the table because they fall squarely under the umbrella of "official acts."

"The indictment's allegations that the requested investigations were 'sham[s]' or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials," Roberts wrote, essentially blocking Smith from introducing the allegations at trial.

As for prosecutors' contentions that Trump pressured then-Vice President Mike Pence to delay the certification of the Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, 2021, as Pence presided over the joint session of Congress, Roberts and the majority ruled Trump is "presumed" to have immunity and raised the bar for using evidence tied to that conduct at trial. The special counsel will now likely have to "rebut the presumption of immunity" to show that Trump is not entitled to legal protection.

The court wrote that Pence was acting at least in part as president of the Senate on Jan. 6, not solely as a member of the Trump administration. As a result, Smith "may argue that consideration of the President's communications with the Vice President concerning the certification proceeding does not pose 'dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch," the decision said.

The high court placed the burden on Smith to prove that prosecuting Trump for allegedly pressuring Pence would not "pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch." Chutkan will then have to make a determination on the matter.

The majority also pointed to "a broad range of conduct" that the lower court will have to examine, including Smith's claims that Trump worked with state officials, private attorneys and his supporters outside the Capitol to subvert the transfer of presidential power.

For example, Smith charged Trump with pressuring Georgia election officials to "find votes" and said the former president and his allies tried to organize false slates of presidential electors. That conduct occupies a gray area that "cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function," Roberts wrote Monday. 

According to the opinion, each allegedly criminal act as described in the indictment is "fact-specific" and requires further briefing with the lower court. Chutkan will have to decide "whether Trump's conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial." The justices offered her a roadmap to weigh the conduct against the risk of "enfeebling" presidential power when deciding the issues.

Under the application of the new standard set by the high court, each argument at the trial court level will require numerous written briefs and even some oral arguments. In some circumstances, even after Chutkan rules, her decisions are likely to be appealed to higher courts for review. 

The same process is likely to play out with regard to Trump's public comments and social media posts leading up to and during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Roberts wrote that while "most" public comments "are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities," a contextual analysis could prove otherwise in certain circumstances.

Trump called the ruling a victory. The special counsel declined to comment on the decision. 

The Trump documents case

The other federal case brought against Trump by Smith involves his alleged mishandling of sensitive government records after leaving the White House in January 2021. Like in the D.C. case, Trump has argued that the charges should be tossed out on the grounds that he is entitled to sweeping immunity from prosecution. He pleaded not guilty to charges he willfully retained national defense information and obstructed the Justice Department's investigation into his handling of documents bearing classification markings.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida has not yet ruled on Trump's claims of presidential immunity. While it's not immediately clear how that case will be impacted, the former president's lawyers and Smith's team will likely submit additional filings to Cannon arguing their position is bolstered by the decision.

The special counsel has argued that the conduct alleged in the indictment — namely that Trump illegally retained national defense information — occurred after he left office, and therefore he is not entitled to legal protection.

But the former president has argued that he declassified the records at issue before leaving office. There are 32 separate documents that underlie the charges, and Trump could claim the broad power to declassify records is within a president's official duties. Trump has also claimed that he deemed the documents marked classified as personal and therefore could bring them with him after leaving office.

Notably, in a separate concurring decision on Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas waded into another legal argument currently pending before Cannon's court: whether Smith's appointment as special prosecutor was legal.

Trump has argued in various court hearings and filings that Smith's appointment was unlawful since he was neither appointed by the president nor approved by the Senate. The Justice Department has defended Attorney General Merrick Garland's decision to name Smith as special counsel, arguing legal and historical precedent supported the move. 

Cannon has yet to rule on the matter. 

In his opinion on Monday, Thomas said he wrote to "highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure." 

The justice questioned whether Smith's office was "established by Law" and wrote that further examination of the appointment should proceed before trial in the D.C. case.

"If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people," Thomas wrote. "The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel's appointment before proceeding."

Although his opinion was not binding, and no other justices signed onto his concurring opinion, Thomas' arguments have the potential to affect Cannon's ruling on the legality of Smith's appointment in the classified documents case. 

The Georgia case

In Fulton County, Georgia, prosecutors alleged that Trump and several of his allies engaged in a scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Much of the conduct alleged in the indictment returned by a Fulton County grand jury is similar to what Smith has accused Trump of doing.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges brought against him in Georgia. As in the federal prosecutions, he has argued the indictment should be dismissed on the grounds he is entitled to presidential immunity. The Fulton County judge overseeing Trump's case, Judge Scott McAfee, has not yet ruled on his bid to toss out the charges.

The case before the Supreme Court involved a federal prosecution, while the Fulton County case is a state prosecution. Still, it's likely McAfee will revisit the conduct alleged in the indictment and determine what actions are considered official or unofficial.

Some of the allegations in the federal indictment, cited by the Supreme Court, include Trump's interactions with people outside the Executive Branch, such as state officials, private parties and the public. The high court said it is now up to the federal district court overseeing Trump's case to determine whether that conduct qualifies as official or unofficial.

In Georgia, prosecutors have pointed to his conversation with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and other high-ranking state officials to support their claim that he unlawfully plotted to overturn the election results, as well as his attempt to organize false slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification of state electoral votes. Expect to see McAfee probe those actions and make a similar determination as to whether they qualify as official or unofficial conduct.

The New York case

The one criminal case against Trump to go to trial ended on May 30 with a conviction. A unanimous Manhattan jury concluded Trump was guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in an effort to cover up reimbursements for a "hush money" payment to an adult film star. Trump signed off on falsifying the records while he was in the White House in 2017.

The issue of whether the allegations in that case relate to official acts was litigated as part of an effort by Trump to move the case from state to federal jurisdiction.

After the Supreme Court's landmark ruling Monday, Trump tried to leverage the decision to overturn his conviction in New York. A letter filed to the judge presiding over the case was not yet public as of Monday evening. A spokesperson for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg declined to comment when asked about Trump's latest move, which was first reported by  The New York Times .

In 2023, Trump and his legal team argued that the allegations involved official acts within the color of his presidential duties, and said a federal court was therefore the proper venue for a trial.

That argument was rejected by a federal judge who wrote that Trump failed to show that his conduct was "for or relating to any act performed by or for the President under color of the official acts of a president."

"The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was purely a personal item of the president — a cover-up of an embarrassing event," U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein wrote. "Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a president's official acts. It does not reflect in any way the color of the president's official duties."

Trump initially appealed that decision, but later dropped it. 

His case went to trial in April, and soon after the jury's unanimous decision finding him guilty, Trump vowed to appeal the conviction.

Trump is scheduled to be sentenced July 11. Prosecutors were expected to file a sentencing recommendation Monday. That filing has not been made public.

Robert Legare is a CBS News multiplatform reporter and producer covering the Justice Department, federal courts and investigations. He was previously an associate producer for the "CBS Evening News with Norah O'Donnell."

More from CBS News

House Republicans sue Garland, seeking Biden audio

Steve Bannon reports to prison in Connecticut

Defense witnesses in Sen. Bob Menendez's bribery trial begin testimony

The Biden-Trump debate was held. Now what?

Speech Events and Natural Speech

Cite this chapter.

• Nessa Wolfson  

Part of the book series: Modern Linguistics Series ((MAML))

1683 Accesses

4 Citations

For interviews which follow a questionnaire format, the problems involved in collecting anything approaching everyday speech are extremely severe. This is because the interview is, in fact, a speech event, in the technical sense proposed by Hymes (1974: 52):

The term speech event will be restricted to activities, or aspects of activities that are directly governed by rules or norms for the use of speech. An event may consist of a single speech act, but will often comprise several.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

How ready is speech-to-text for psychological language research? Evaluating the validity of AI-generated English transcripts for analyzing free-spoken responses in younger and older adults

Indirect Reported Speech in Interaction

Content-free speech activity records: interviews with people with schizophrenia

Brown, R. and Gilman, A. (1960) ‘The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity’, in Sebeok, T. A. (ed.) Style and Language ( Cambridge, MA: The Technology Press ) pp. 253–76.

Google Scholar  

Hymes, D. H. (1974) Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach ( Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press).

Labov, W. (1972a) ‘The Logic of Nonstandard English’, in Labov, W. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular (Philadelphia. PA: University of Pennsylvania Press ) pp. 201–40.

Labov, W. (1972b) ‘The Isolation of Contextual Styles’, in Labov, W. Sociolinguistic Patterns ( Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press ) pp. 70–109.

Shuy, R. W., Wolfram, W. and Riley, W. K. (1968) Field Techniques in an Urban Language Study ( Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics).

Wolfram, W. and Fasold, R. (1974) The Study of Social Dialects in American English ( Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Copyright information.

© 1997 Macmillan Publishers Limited

About this chapter

Wolfson, N. (1997). Speech Events and Natural Speech. In: Coupland, N., Jaworski, A. (eds) Sociolinguistics. Modern Linguistics Series. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25582-5_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25582-5_11

Publisher Name : Palgrave, London

Print ISBN : 978-0-333-61180-7

Online ISBN : 978-1-349-25582-5

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

In Supreme Court presidential immunity ruling, a fierce Sotomayor dissenting opinion

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision Monday to grant Donald Trump some immunity from criminal prosecution would make a president a “king above the law” in a scolding dissent.

Sotomayor issued her forceful dissent from the court’s conservative majority alongside Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson . In her dissent, Jackson wrote that the ruling “ breaks new and dangerous ground .” Chief Justice John Roberts accused the liberal judges of “fear mongering,” writing that their opinions “strike a tone of chilling doom” disproportionate to the court’s ruling.

The case, Trump v. United States , is the result of the former president’s appeal for absolute presidential immunity from prosecution for his actions while serving in the Oval Office. The court decided Trump has immunity for some of his conduct as president but that he can face criminal prosecution for unofficial actions, leaving lower courts to define what constitutes an “official” action.

The decision is seen as a political and legal win for the former president’s reelection campaign and is highly scrutinized in Sotomayor’s dissent.

“Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency,” Sotomayor wrote.

Read the  full text  of Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion below:

Rachel Barber is a 2024 election fellow at USA TODAY, focusing on politics and education. Follow her on X, formerly Twitter, as @rachelbarber_

Colleen Long, Associated Press Colleen Long, Associated Press

Will Weissert, Associated Press Will Weissert, Associated Press

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-biden-addresses-supreme-court-ruling-on-presidential-immunity-and-trump

WATCH: ‘No one is above the law,’ Biden says after Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity and Trump

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden is seeking to put the focus squarely onto Donald Trump following his uneven debate performance last week.

Watch Biden’s remarks in the player above.

Speaking Monday after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling granting broad immunity from prosecution to Trump and other presidents, Biden said the high court’s ruling had undermined the rule of law. The court’s conservative majority ruling makes it all but certain that the Republican will not face trial in Washington ahead of the November election over his actions during the violent riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

READ MORE: What does the Supreme Court immunity ruling mean for Trump? 6 questions answered

“No one is above the law, not even the president of the United States,” Biden said from the White House.

During his brief remarks he made no mention of last week’s debate or his performance, and did not take questions.

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

Biden seemed relaxed and confident, striking a clear and crisp tone and looking tanned and rested — all of which was in stark contrast to his often halting performance during last week’s debate, when his face was notably pale. The president also had the benefit of a teleprompter for his remarks about the court, something he didn’t have while facing off with Trump.

“I know I will respect the limits of presidential power as I have for the three-and-a-half years, but any president, including Donald Trump, will now be free to ignore the law,” Biden said.

For all the public efforts to shift the focus away from his uneven performance that spooked donors and prompted Democratic anxiety, there have been private discussions on what more Biden could do to counteract what Americans saw during the debate, when he gave convoluted answers, trailed off at times, occasionally stared blankly and sounded raspy-voiced.

There has been talk about whether Biden should be seen more in public through town-hall-style events or interviews and press conferences, which he has generally avoided during his time in office.

But most in his orbit are waiting on more substantial polling to come back in order to assess how bad the damage was before altering course in any substantial way. That’s according to four Biden advisers who were not authorized to speak publicly about internal discussions and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

Biden’s team may not alter anything at all. Many think — or hope — the fraught moment will pass, particularly after Biden’s family encouraged him to stay in the race and keep fighting during a huddle at Camp David on Sunday.

Campaign officials said Monday they had nothing to announce on new events. They said Biden would be campaigning as he has been, hitting battleground states as he has already been doing for months.

An ad released Monday was called “I Know” using clips from Biden’s post-debate North Carolina rally, where he said, “When you get knocked down, you get back up.”

Quentin Fulks, Biden’s principal deputy campaign manager, put the focus on Trump in a call with reporters, saying, “When you do see President Biden out on the trail, he will be talking about the reasons why Americans should be scared of Donald Trump, as he has been for months.”

Even before the debate, the age of the 81-year-old Democratic president had been a liability with voters, and the prime-time faceoff put the issue front-and-center before perhaps the largest audience he will have in the four months until Election Day. CNN, which held the debate, said more than 51 million people watched.

“I think his age was baked in, to a large degree, and I know he can do better than he did on Thursday night. I expected to see better. I’m not sure other voters did,” said Jennifer Palmieri, a White House communications director during the Obama administration and a spokesperson for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

She added that, tactically, the campaign has responded by promoting Biden’s strong speech in North Carolina on Friday and by continuing to post strong fundraising numbers. Palmieri also said Biden might also want to sit for more interviews to continue to show that the debate was an anomaly.

“Their focus needs to be on getting him in front of voters that matter the most, and more interviews should be part of that. Don’t be like Trump in your own little universe,” she said. “For now, we’re early, but what they’re doing is working.”

There’s a sense that voters may now be watching Biden more closely for signs that show one way or another whether his debate debacle was a blip — whether he is, as he says, capable of doing the job.

Alan Kessler, a lawyer and member of the Biden campaign’s national finance team, has spent days calming jittery donors, telling them what he says he has personally witnessed when he’s seen the president — that he’s “lucid, strong as he’s always been.”

“To the extent it’s necessary, I’m reassuring people,” Kessler said.

Rebecca Katz, a strategist who worked with Democratic Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman’s winning campaign in 2022, saw potential parallels in Fetterman’s comeback from a shaky debate performance after he had a stroke.

Fetterman’s team highlighted especially bombastic comments his opponent made about abortion during that debate, and also had the candidate travel extensively afterward. He did lots of local television interviews to ensure voters in key markets saw him outside of clips from the debate.

“It’s not a perfect comparison but there is a blueprint for the Biden campaign,” Katz said. “You can have a rough debate night and still win.”

Biden expressed interest in doing at least one interview. At a Saturday fundraiser in East Hampton, New York, Biden said he had spoken with the broadcaster Howard Stern, who had interviewed him in April, where he answered open-ended questions mostly about his early years.

The president told the crowd he was ready for another sit-down with Stern, saying: “I had a great time on his show. And I’m actually going to take a chance in going back.”

The Democratic National Committee and Biden’s campaign, meanwhile, kept up damage control, holding an evening finance call. Over the weekend, they held calls with donors and one with dozens of committee members across the country — some of the most influential members of the party. They offered a rosy assessment of the path forward and gave no opportunity for others on the call to ask questions.

Multiple committee members on the weekend call, most granted anonymity to talk about the private discussion, described feeling like they were being asked to ignore a serious predicament.

Campaign officials have said there was no discussion “whatsoever” of Biden exiting the race nor of any staff shakeups following the debate.

Democratic Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania said he thought voters were more concerned with the issues at stake, anyway. “I’ve been at this a while, and I know his work,” Casey said.

The window of opportunity for that is shrinking anyway. The Democratic National Committee has announced that it will use a virtual roll call to formally make him the nominee before the convention begins in Chicago on Aug. 19. But when that will happen and what it will look like is still unclear.

Associated Press Writers Josh Boak, Michael Rubinkam in Scranton, Pa., and Thomas Beaumont in Des Moinse, Iowa contributed to this report.

Support Provided By: Learn more

Breaking down Supreme Court decisions on Jan. 6 cases, homeless camps and agency power

Politics Jun 28

Trump has some immunity in D.C. election interference case, Supreme Court rules: Highlights

What to know about the supreme court's ruling on trump's immunity appeal.

• The Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump has some immunity from prosecution in his federal election interference case. The 6-3 decision, which is complex, further delays special counsel Jack Smith's prosecution.
• Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, rejected Trump's broad immunity claims and said Trump has immunity only for his "official" acts as president. The high court did not determine what constitutes an official act in this case, leaving that to the lower court.
• The court's liberal justices issued blistering dissents . In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the ruling "breaks new and dangerous ground."
• President Joe Biden gave brief remarks from the White House this evening on the court's ruling , calling it a "dangerous precedent."

Trump’s Georgia election case gets more complications after immunity decision

Dareh Gregorian

The Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision is expected to add new twists to Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis’ already stalled racketeering case against Trump and his allies.

The Georgia case, which involves some of the same issues in special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump on federal election interference charges, was officially paused last month until at least October, when an appeals court will hear arguments from Trump and some of his co-defendants challenging the presiding judge’s decision not to disqualify Willis as prosecutor.

Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee has yet to set a trial date, and one of the motions pending before him is Trump’s bid to get the charges tossed out on presidential immunity grounds.

Read the full story here.

Trump slams Biden after White House remarks on immunity ruling

Katherine Koretski

Trump said tonight that Biden's remarks from the White House were meant to distract from his performance on the campaign trail.

"Another attack by Crooked Joe Biden against his Political Opponent. This is a really bad and incompetent guy. Wanted to deflect from his horrible campaign performance!" Trump said on his social media site, Truth Social.

Special counsel isn't planning to ask the Supreme Court to quickly send Trump case back to lower court

Ken Dilanian

Reporting from Washington

Special counsel Jack Smith is not, as of now, planning to ask the Supreme Court to move more quickly than usual to issue its official judgment based on today’s ruling.

The final judgment is what triggers the process for the case to get back to the district court. As it stands, the Supreme Court’s mandate will not issue for at least 32 days.

It’s unclear why Smith’s office is not asking for this to happen faster. One interpretation is that either way, there won’t be a trial before the election so there is no longer any time pressure.

Trump moves to postpone sentencing and set aside hush money verdict

Laura Jarrett

Zoë Richards

Trump's attorneys in his New York hush money case indicated in a letter to the presiding judge that they want him to postpone sentencing and set aside the trial verdict as a result of the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling.

The lawyers said they want to brief state Judge Juan Merchan on the relevance of the high court's immunity decision and an argument that decision confirmed that the Manhattan district attorney should not have been able to offer evidence at trial about Trump’s official acts.

Trump's attorneys are seeking to throw out his conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records and postpone next week’s sentencing, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter.

News of the motion was first reported by The New York Times.

Trump's attorneys pointed to an element of the Supreme Court opinion that limits what evidence can be used at trial. The motion comes 10 days before Trump is scheduled to be sentenced in the New York trial.

The district attorney’s office declined to comment.

‘I dissent’: Biden attacks Supreme Court immunity ruling

Ginger Gibson Senior Washington Editor

Biden tonight called  the Supreme Court decision  on presidential immunity “a terrible disservice to the people of this nation.”

“This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America. Each, each of us is equal before the law. No one, no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States. [With] today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed for all practical purposes,” Biden said.

Biden said the decision means there are now “virtually no limits on what the president can do,” a sentiment that echoed the dissents written by the liberal justices on the court.

“I dissent,” Biden said in concluding his brief remarks from the White House.

Biden says immunity ruling means there are 'virtually no limits' on presidential power

Biden said tonight that the Supreme Court's ruling means there are “virtually no limits” on presidential power.

He said voters deserved to have an answer through the courts before Election Day about what took place on Jan. 6, 2021.

"Now, because of today's decision, that is highly, highly unlikely. It's a terrible disservice to the people of this nation," he said.

Biden added that the high court's ruling means voters in November will be charged with deciding whether they want to elect Trump "now knowing he’ll be more emboldened to do whatever he pleases, whenever he wants to do it."

President Biden speaking about the decision

Biden is beginning to speak in remarks that are expected to be brief and in response to the decision.

Trump hailed the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, while the White House said that “nobody is above the law” and the country needs leaders like Biden. NBC News’ Hallie Jackson reports.

Biden to deliver remarks tonight on Trump immunity ruling

Tara Prindiville

The White House this evening said that Biden will deliver remarks at 7:45 p.m. about today's presidential immunity ruling.

Biden was initially scheduled to return to the White House from Camp David, Maryland, after 8 p.m.

House Republicans sue Merrick Garland over Biden audiotapes

Across the street from the Supreme Court, the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee today sued Attorney General Merrick Garland as part of its effort to obtain audiotapes from special counsel Robert Hur’s interview of Biden tied to his handling of classified documents.

"Garland violated, and continues to violate, his legal obligation by refusing to produce to the Committee the audio recordings of the Special Counsel’s interviews with President Biden and Mark Zwonitzer when those recordings are not covered by executive privilege, and, even if they were, executive privilege has been waived," House atto r neys wr ote .

The panel’s lawsuit seeks a court order requiring Garland to produce the audio recordings of Hur's interviews with Biden and Zwonitzer, the ghostwriter of Biden's 2017 memoir.

The panel had previously issued a subpoena to Garland, and the GOP-controlled House  voted to hold him in contempt  last month for refusing to release the special counsel's recordings. The Justice Department declined to bring contempt charges against Garland.

Biden in May asserted executive privilege  over the recordings with Hur, which were released in transcripts in March.

'Five alarm fire': Immunity ruling raises fears about future lawless presidents

Lawrence Hurley Supreme Court reporter

When President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon in 1974, it was under the assumption that his predecessor could have been prosecuted for his efforts to impede the investigation into the Watergate scandal.

But under the new rule implemented by the Supreme Court today that partially immunized Donald Trump in his election interference case, there may not have been any need for such a pardon.

“Richard Nixon would have had a pass,” John Dean, Nixon’s White House counsel, said on a call with reporters today.

Immunity ruling will delay Trump’s Jan. 6 case until after the election

Ryan J. Reilly

Daniel Barnes is reporting from the federal courthouse.

The Supreme Court’s  presidential immunity decision  will further delay Trump’s Washington  criminal case  related to his  efforts to stop the transfer of power  in the lead-up to the  Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol , virtually guaranteeing that Trump’s trial won’t start before Election Day.

Instead, the high court’s ruling sets the stage for hearings before U.S. District Judge  Tanya Chutkan  on what allegations in special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment should be considered official acts and, therefore, potentially immune from prosecution. Her ultimate decisions could then be subjected to further appeal, meaning that a Trump trial is unlikely to happen until well into 2025. If Trump wins in November, a trial is unlikely to happen at all.

Hillary Clinton says she joins Sotomayor in fear for democracy

Daniel Arkin

Hillary Clinton reacted to the Supreme Court's immunity ruling on X, writing that she agreed with the final line of Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissenting opinion: "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."

"It will be up to the American people this November to hold Donald Trump accountable," Clinton said.

Former Capitol Police officer says court 'stripped the guardrails of democracy'

Former Capitol Police Sgt. Aquilino Gonell, who was at the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot, was outside the Supreme Court for the decision today.

In a statement, he said, "The Supreme Court just further stripped the guardrails of democracy. It’s Absurd and dangerous."

He added: "The GOP and right wing leaning Supreme Court have gone rogue, detached from reality and abandoned the truth. If Biden invokes a mob and sends it to attack the Supreme Court/congress, would the GOP accept that or hold Biden accountable?"

Posting a picture on X of an article with the headline "The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially," he also said, "The Supreme Court failed to recognize that they themselves could be targeted."

No word from McConnell or Thune today

Frank Thorp V producer and off-air reporter

Neither Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell nor Senate Minority Whip John Thune has issued a statement since the immunity ruling.

But notably, after McConnell voted to acquit Trump in his second impeachment trial, the Senate GOP leader said “former presidents are not immune from being held accountable” in both criminal and civil courts.

"In the language of today, President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office as an ordinary citizen unless the statute of limitations is run, still liable for everything he did while he was in office," he said. "He didn’t get away with anything yet. Yet. We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one."

Durbin says Alito and Thomas should have recused themselves from Trump immunity case

Kathryn Gilroy

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin condemned Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito for not recusing themselves from the Trump immunity case.

"It is disgraceful that Justice Thomas and Alito brazenly refused to recuse themselves from this case," Durbin said. "As I've said before, the appearance of impropriety or partiality require recusal. Until Chief Justice Roberts uses his existing authority to enact an enforceable code of conduct, I will continue to push to pass the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act. "

Democrats had called for Alito to recuse himself from two Trump-related cases over two controversial flags that were flown outside his homes in Virginia and New Jersey. Calls for Thomas to recuse himself from the cases center on trips he took that were paid for by billionaire GOP donor Harlan Crow and that he failed to disclose on his financial forms. Both justices declined to step aside.

Thomas has also for years faced criticism over the political activism of his wife, Ginni Thomas .

Thomas suggests he believes special counsel's appointment was illegal: 'A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone'

In his concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas weighs in on the question argued before Judge Aileen Cannon the other day: whether Jack Smith’s appointment was legal. Thomas strongly suggested he believes that it was not, in part because no law establishes the current office of special counsel.

"I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure," Thomas wrote. "In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been 'established by Law,' as the Constitution requires."

He added that "if there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President." 

Alina Habba says 'justices made the right decision'

Trump legal spokesperson Alina Habba said on Fox News that she thinks "that the justices made the right decision" and that the "American people think that these cases should have never existed."

Citing Nixon v. Fitzgerald, Habba said that "absolute immunity is important for all presidents. I’ve said it time and time again. I’ve argued on immunity for President Trump, and I think they did get right that they recognize absolute immunity exists."

She added: “It is a good day when court rest recognizes constitutional rights of presidents and the executive branch, but we should never have been in this situation to start with. This is a disgrace to America,” and “it’s election interference at its finest.”

Habba also said she doesn't "see how this case could go forward before the election."

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says she will seek to impeach justices

Elleiana Green Elleiana Green is a Digital Politics intern with NBC News

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said in a statement posted to X that today's Supreme Court ruling is an "assault on American democracy" and that she intends to file articles of impeachment.

"The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control," she added.

She did not say which justices she intends to target — six voted with the majority.

The House is controlled by Republicans, meaning her effort is unlikely to get traction.

What the immunity decision would mean for evidence in Trump's federal election interference trial

Today’s decision sets out a lot of rules about what evidence can or cannot be used in Trump’s election interference trial, assuming we ever get there.

As part of today’s ruling, the court held if a certain allegation in the indictment is determined to be an “official act,” prosecutors cannot introduce “testimony or private records of the President probing the official act itself.”

However, the court has left a narrow path for prosecutors to show jurors evidence of official acts if, and only if, that evidence can be found in the public record. 

“But of course the prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act,” Roberts writes. “And the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act.”

So if there is a video of Trump speaking to the media or otherwise discussing any of the acts in the indictment — such as the call pressuring Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to overturn Biden's win — those statements could be introduced as evidence.

What prosecutors would not be able to do is put someone like Mark Meadows or another presidential adviser on the witness stand and have them tell jurors about their discussions with Trump. 

Speaker Mike Johnson calls ruling a 'victory'

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La, said “today’s ruling by the Court is a victory for former President Trump and all future presidents, and another defeat for President Biden’s weaponized Department of Justice and Jack Smith.”

He adds in a statement: "The Court clearly stated that presidents are entitled to immunity for their official acts. This decision is based on the obviously unique power and position of the presidency, and comports with the Constitution and common sense. As President Trump has repeatedly said, the American people, not President Biden’s bureaucrats, will decide the November 5th election.”

What was it like inside the Supreme Court today?

Gary Grumbach

Rebecca Shabad

When Chief Justice John Roberts announced that he had the opinion in the Trump immunity case, nearly everyone in the courtroom gallery was on the edge of their seats.

All eight present justices (Justice Neil Gorsuch was absent today) were looking ahead into the gallery during the introduction of the opinion.

Roberts ticked through the various official duties of a president, including commanding the nation’s armed forces, to appoint judges — even on this court, he said — and to oversee international diplomacy.

“Not all the actions that the president takes are within the exclusive theater” of official duties, Roberts said, but the ones that are must be protected. “The president must be able to govern” without risk of prosecution or imprisonment, Roberts said. 

“No immunity,” Roberts said, “applies to the president’s unofficial conduct.” That line, however, is clearly where the justices in the majority stopped. “Drawing that decision can be difficult,” he said, lamenting that neither the district court nor appeals court provided guidance on how to distinguish between official and unofficial conduct.

Roberts listed seven reasons why the court made the decision it did, including what he called a lack of precedent, that the “issues are quite difficult,” and that lower courts did not provide the above guidance. 

Roberts then prebutted Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent, saying that the minority dissenters believe today’s decision will lead to “dire consequences.” If they did not make the decision they did today, Roberts said that “the end result would be an executive branch that cannibalizes itself.” 

“The president is not above the law,” Roberts said as he wrapped up his majority opinion read.  

During Sotomayor’s dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas seemed to have a hard time keeping his eyes open, and at times was leaning so far back in his chair, it appeared to be testing the limits of the chair’s flexibility. Roberts and Samuel Alito were reading along with Sotomayor, while Alito, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Brett Kavanaugh were looking into and around the gallery.

A “president’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt purpose,” is now almost certain to be immune from prosecution, Sotomayor said. “The majority invents immunity through brute force.”

She then took the court through a few examples of actions she believes the president can now take, with this newfound-immunity. Order the Navy Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival? “Immune. He’s the commander-in-chief,” she said with snark.

“With fear for our democracy, I along with the framers, dissent," she said.

Biden campaign fundraises off Supreme Court immunity ruling

Sahil Kapur

In a new fundraising email a few hours after the immunity ruling, the Biden campaign wrote to supporters: "If Trump wins again, he’ll be even more dangerous and unhinged because he knows the courts won’t hold him back."

The campaign wrote that the "Supreme Court just granted Donald Trump breathtaking immunity from prosecution," and added: "We cannot overstate how unprecedented this ruling is. One of the dissenting opinions states if the president '[o]rders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival' they will be 'Immune'" — quoting Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent.

The email encouraged recipients to donate, providing links to do so.

Stefanik says immunity decision is a 'historic victory' for the rule of law

Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y. and a Trump vice president contender, said the president "must have immunity" in order for a presidency to "function properly" in a statement posted on X.

She added, "Today's Supreme Court decision is a historic victory for President Donald Trump, the Constitution, the rule of law, and the American people."

Hakeem Jeffries says SCOTUS set a "dangerous precedent"

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said in a press release that "no one, including the twice-impeached former President, should be above the law. The Constitution is sacredly obligatory upon all. That’s what makes America special. "

He adds "Today’s Supreme Court decision to grant legal immunity to a former President for crimes committed using his official power sets a dangerous precedent for the future of our nation. The Framers of the Constitution envisioned a democracy governed by the rule of law and the consent of the American people. They did not intend for our nation to be ruled by a king or monarch who could act with absolute impunity. House Democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution."

Judiciary Committee to "continue to oversee" the judicial system

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said on X that "the Judiciary Committee will continue to oversee dangerous lawfare tactics in our judicial system."

He added that "hyper-partisan prosecutors like Jack Smith cannot weaponize the rule of law to go after the Administration's chief political rival, and we hope that the Left will stop its attacks on President Trump and uphold democratic norms."

Pelosi says the Supreme Court has 'gone rogue' in it's immunity decision

In a press release , Rep. Nancy Pelosi said the Supreme Court's credibility has been "further diminished  in the eyes of all those who believe in the rule of law.”

The Supreme Court has "gone rogue" as the "claim of total presidential immunity is an insult to the vision of our founders, who declared independence from a King," she said.

Trump says all criminal and civil cases against him should now be dropped

Basking in a win at the Supreme Court, Trump said all of the cases against him should now be dropped, including a civil case that covered business practices from before he took office.

He continued to assert that Biden is behind the prosecutions he faces, a point he frequently makes with no evidence to back it up.

“Today’s Historic Decision by the Supreme Court should end all of Crooked Joe Biden’s Witch Hunts against me, including the New York Hoaxes — The Manhattan SCAM cooked up by Soros backed D.A., Alvin Bragg, Racist New York Attorney General Tish James’ shameless ATTACK on the amazing business that I have built, and the FAKE Bergdorf’s 'case,'" Trump wrote on his social media page Truth Social, adding in all capital letters: "Proud to be an American."

Trump allies praise immunity decision

Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson responded on X, saying, "Today’s HISTORIC SCOTUS victory on presidential immunity has stopped Biden and the Department of 'Justice' from their attempt to twist the law in order to persecute his political opponents."

He added that "they know they can’t beat him at the ballot box so they tried to tie him up in their campaign of lawfare. Luckily, SCOTUS held the line against tyranny showing that America is still a country that upholds the rule of law.”

Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., posted on X that "the Supreme Court isn't 'protecting Trump.' SCOTUS is simply ensuring the ruthless Biden admin follows the RULE OF LAW!"

Steve Bannon says ‘I’m proud of going to prison’ as he enters lockup

Summer Concepcion

Shortly before reporting to prison on a four-month sentence for defying congressional subpoenas, Bannon said his imprisonment makes him a “political prisoner” of Democrats.

“I’m a political prisoner of Nancy Pelosi. I’m a political prisoner of Merrick Garland. I’m a political prisoner of Joe Biden, the corrupt Biden establishment,” he said in remarks to reporters in front of the prison.

“It’s Nancy Pelosi and Merrick Garland that made me a martyr, right?” he continued. “But martyrs die, and I’m far from dead, baby.”

Bannon said he is “proud" to serve his prison sentence, arguing that he is standing up to “tyranny” by Democrats.

“I am proud to go to prison. If this is what it takes to stand up to tyranny, if this is what it takes to stand up to the Garland corrupt criminal DOJ, if this is what it takes to stand up to Nancy Pelosi, if this is what it takes to stand up to Joe Biden, I’m proud to do it,” he said.

Bannon also decried Trump’s sentencing on all 34 courts in his hush money trial in New York on July 11, saying that his own four-month prison sentence is “nothing” compared to Trump’s “very sham trial.”

Sen. Blumenthal calls conservative justices ‘nakedly partisan hacks’ in immunity ruling

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said the Supreme Court has “put lawbreaking presidents like Donald Trump above the law” in what he called a “cravenly political decision to shield President Trump” and delay his criminal trial.

In a statement, Blumenthal, a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the ruling bestows “an unwise and unjust broad shield for him and other presidents who flout and flagrantly abuse their office.”

“This is a license for authoritarianism,” he said. “My stomach turns with fear and anger that our democracy can be so endangered by an out-of-control Court. The members of Court’s conservative majority will now be rightly perceived by the American people as extreme and nakedly partisan hacks — politicians in robes.”

Sen. Vance says decision may 'destroy all of Jack Smith's case'

Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio and a Trump vice president contender, posted on X that the ruling was "a massive win, not just for Trump but the rule of law."

He continued saying, "I'm still digesting but this may well destroy all of Jack Smith's case against the president."

Justice Barrett says Trump still should stand trial

Alana Satlin

Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued a concurring opinion, agreeing with the majority that Trump has some immunity from prosecution but that the decision shouldn't get in the way of his standing trial.

"A President facing prosecution may challenge the constitutionality of a criminal statute as applied to official acts alleged in the indictment,” she said, noting that the court rejected Trump's broader immunity claims. “If that challenge fails, however, he must stand trial."

She also said she agreed with the dissent's opinion that immune conduct should still be allowed to be used as evidence in his trial.

"I appreciate the [majority's] concern that allowing into evidence official acts for which the President cannot be held criminally liable may prejudice the jury," but, "the Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable."

Dissent says the president is 'now a king above the law'

Another scathing line from Sotomayor's dissent:

Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.

Steve Bannon arrives at Connecticut prison to begin sentence for defying congressional subpoenas

Vaughn Hillyard

Steve Bannon has arrived to report to prison at Danbury, Connecticut. Supporters standing outside of the prison chanted his name upon his arrival.

Bannon, an ally of Trump who has pushed his baseless claims of a rigged 2020 election, was sentenced to four months in prison for refusing to comply with subpoenas from the House Jan. 6 committee, which requested his testimony in its probe into the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021.

Bannon told NBC News that he is set to be released from prison Oct. 31, the week before the November presidential election.

Schumer says it's a 'sad day for our democracy'

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said "This is a sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy," in a statement posted to X.

A “disgraceful decision” by the Supreme Court, Schumer said the decision will allow the former President to “weaken our democracy by breaking the law.”

Schumer added, "Treason or incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president."

Donald Trump Jr. says ruling was 'solid'

Former President Donald Trumps oldest son, Donald Trump Jr., posted on Truth Social after the Supreme Court ruling.

"Solid SCOTUS ruling today. I'm sure the corrupt prosecutors and Dc judge will work overtime to continue their lawfare. It's all they have left."

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene says Supreme Court made the 'right decision'

Awaiting Steve Bannon's arrival at federal prison in Danbury, Conn., Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene told NBC News that the Supreme Court made the "right decision" in Trump's immunity case. She also said special counsel Jack Smith should be "defunded."

Any official acts can't be used as evidence at trial

In writing his decision, Roberts made clear that anything the lower court determines to be an "official act" cannot be used as evidence in a criminal trial — meaning it's entirely off limits to prosecutors even if it would corroborate evidence deemed unofficial.

"Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution," Roberts wrote. "And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial."

Roberts argues liberal dissenters are having a 'disproportionate' reaction to immunity ruling

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing in his majority opinion, appeared to argue that the liberal justices overreacted to the court’s decision in their dissents.

"As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today," Roberts wrote.

The three justices who make up the court's liberal bloc — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — all dissented from the court's majority opinion and argued that it created a dangerous new precedent for American presidents.

Sotomayor, for example, wrote that she lodged her dissent “with fear for our democracy."

In dissent, Jackson lays out process for determining whether president has immunity

In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to run through the process by which the U.S. legal system could decide whether a president has immunity, based on the language of the majority opinion in Trump v. U.S.

"From the structure of the paradigm, it appears that the first decision point is whether the alleged criminal conduct involves one of the President’s 'core' powers," Jackson wrote. "If so (and apparently regardless of the degree to which the conduct implicates that core power), the President is absolutely immune from criminal liability for engaging in that criminal conduct. If not, then one must proceed to consider whether the conduct qualifies as an 'official' act or 'unofficial' act of that President."

"If the crime is an official act, the President is presumptively immune from criminal prosecution and punishment," Jackson added. "But even then, immunity still hinges on whether there is any legal or factual basis for concluding that the presumption of immunity has been rebutted. Alternatively, if the charged conduct is an unofficial act (a determination that, incidentally, courts must make without considering the President’s motivations, ante, at 18), the President is not immune."

Jackson argues immunity decision 'breaks new and dangerous ground'

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her dissent, accused the conservative justices who wrote the majority opinion in Trump v. U.S. of breaking "new and dangerous ground," departing from what she characterized as a tradition of "individual accountability."

"With that understanding of how our system of accountability for criminal acts ordinarily functions, it becomes much easier to see that the majority’s ruling in this case breaks new and dangerous ground," Jackson wrote.

"Departing from the traditional model of individual accountability, the majority has concocted something entirely different: a Presidential accountability model that creates immunity — an exemption from criminal law— applicable only to the most powerful official in our Government," she added.

She goes on later in the dissent to say, "even a hypothetical President who admits to having ordered the assassinations of his political rivals or critics, or one who indisputably instigates an unsuccessful coup, has a fair shot at getting immunity under the majority’s new Presidential accountability model."

Trump praises immunity decision: 'Big win for our Constitution and democracy'

Minutes after the Supreme Court ruled that he has some immunity in his federal election case, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to tout the ruling.

"Big win for our Constitution and democracy. Proud to be an American!" Trump wrote in all caps.

In blistering dissent, Sotomayor says immunity decision 'reshapes' presidency

In an impassioned dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted the court's majority decision in Trump v. U.S., writing in part that the opinion permanently changes the nature of the American presidency.

"Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency," Sotomayor wrote. "It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for 'bold and unhesitating action' by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more."

"Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent," Sotomayor added.

She added in her opinion, “The indictment paints a stark portrait of a President desperate to stay in power.”

Biden campaign says immunity ruling doesn't change what happened on Jan. 6

Gabe Gutierrez

A senior Biden campaign adviser said that today's ruling "doesn't change the facts" about what happened on Jan. 6, 2021.

"Donald Trump snapped after he lost the 2020 election and encouraged a mob to overthrow the results of a free and fair election," the adviser said. "Trump is already running for president as a convicted felon for the very same reason he sat idly by while the mob violently attacked the Capitol: he thinks he’s above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself."

The adviser said that Trump "has only grown more unhinged" since Jan. 6.

“He’s promising to be a dictator ‘on day one,’ calling for our Constitution to be ‘terminated’ so he can regain power, and promising a “bloodbath” if he loses," the adviser said. "The American people already rejected Donald Trump’s self-obsessed quest for power once — Joe Biden will make sure they reject it for good in November.”

It's a complicated decision

This isn't like some Supreme Court decisions we see come down where it is immediately clear what the outcome will mean.

There will be a lot of reading and explaining before the whole scope of the decision is clear.

Supreme Court rules Trump has some immunity in federal election interference case, further delaying trial

Reporting from the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Donald Trump has immunity for some of his alleged conduct as president in his federal election interference case but maybe not for other actions, adding another obstacle to a trial taking place.

In a novel and potentially consequential case on the limits of presidential power, the justices rejected Trump’s broad claim of immunity, meaning the charges will not be dismissed, but said some actions closely related to his core duties as president are off-limits to prosecutors.

Read more about the decision here.

Roberts wrote the Trump immunity decision

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority decision in the Trump immunity ruling.

It's a complicated ruling — attempting to draw a line between official and unofficial acts.

"This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? In answering that question, unlike the political branches and the public at large, the Court cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office," Roberts wrote.

Protesters outside Supreme Court

Protesters gather outside the Supreme Court ahead of a decision on Trump’s claim of immunity from criminal prosecution.

Second decision is Moody v. NetChoice

The second decision of the day, announced just after 10:20 a.m. ET, is a ruling in Moody v. NetChoice. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion, which was 9-0.

“Our unanimous agreement regarding NetChoice’s failure to show that a sufficient number of its members engage in constitutionally protected expression prevents us from accepting NetChoice’s argument regarding these provisions. In the lower courts, NetChoice did not even try to show how these disclosure provisions chill each platform’s speech," Kagan wrote.

Without explanation, Trump says immunity decision could have a 'bigger impact' on Biden than him

Jake Traylor

In a pretaped interview with radio host John Fredericks that aired this morning, Trump said he thinks the immunity ruling will have "a bigger impact on Joe Biden" than himself.

“You know, the immunity statement that’s coming out, they say on Sunday, on Monday, that is going to be very interesting to see what happens, but I think it has a bigger impact on Joe Biden than it has on me, actually,” Trump said, without explaining. 

Trump has suggested that if he returns to office, he could prosecute Biden or other political foes.

Asked what he thinks will happen at his hush money sentencing hearing next week, Trump said he believes “there should be no sentence.” He was found guilty in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records and faces a range of possible sentences, including probation, a fine or prison time.

Trump also spoke about Biden staying in the race and said people are saying they “can’t get him out” but could maybe use the 25th amendment if necessary.  

First decision is Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

The first decision released just after 10 a.m. is Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. It's a 6-3 decision written by Justice Barrett.

As expected, there are two boxes of decisions

There are two boxes of decisions in the Supreme Court press room, which was expected.

The Supreme Court’s decision to rule in favor of a Jan. 6 rioter could be seen as a win for former Donald Trump’s base, but it may have the opposite effect on independent voters in battleground states. NBC News’ Kristen Welker and Danny Cevallos analyze the implications on the 2024 election.

Today's decisions expected soon

It's 10 a.m. ET, which means today's Supreme Court rulings will start coming in shortly. We're expecting three decisions today, including an opinion in the high-stakes Trump immunity case.

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi urges Supreme Court to rule against Trump in immunity claim

Alexandra Marquez

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday said she hoped the court would rule against Trump’s claim of immunity, telling MSNBC’s Jen Psaki, “If the court tomorrow says that the former president is above the law, they will have done a grave disservice to justice in our country.”

She added, “Let us hope that they ... show us some allegiance to their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and that just because you’re president doesn’t mean you’re immune from prosecution if you break the law.” 

Where does Trump's election interference case stand?

Megan Lebowitz

Trump's election interference trial could be delayed until after the November election, depending on how the justices rule this morning.

The Supreme Court could send the case to a lower court for decisions about which of Trump's actions could be considered official acts, which would further delay the case.

If a trial is delayed until after the election and Trump is re-elected, there are questions about whether he would pardon himself.

How an appeals court ruled on Trump's immunity

A federal appeals court in February ruled against Trump's argument that he was immune from prosecution for alleged acts while president.

The court noted that "former President Trump has become citizen Trump," dismissing Trump's assertion that former presidents have immunity.

"But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution," the appeals court said.

Supreme Court set to rule on Trump immunity in election interference case

The Supreme Court on Monday is expected to issue its long-anticipated ruling on whether former President Donald Trump can claim immunity from prosecution for at least some of his actions in seeking to overturn the 2020 election.

Chief Justice John Roberts announced Friday that Monday would be the last day of rulings in the current nine-month court term, with the Trump case one of four yet to be decided.

The rulings will be issued one by one, starting at 10 a.m., with the Trump case likely to be the last.

The court has already faced fierce criticism from the left — both for hearing the Trump case in the first place, thereby preventing a trial from taking place in March, and for taking so long to decide it, making it difficult if not impossible for a trial to begin before the election.

Trump faces a four-count indictment for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, in which a mob of his supporters sought to prevent Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s election.

16 Special Occasion Speeches

Speaking to Inspire, Entertain, or Honor

In this chapter . . .

Special occasion speeches are the umbrella term for all speeches that don’t fall into either informative or persuasive. As such there is a lot of diversity within speeches of this style. These speeches are often more personal. Additionally, they are more likely to use elements of storytelling and personal reflection. We cover the four ingredients of special occasion speeches, types of speeches in this category, and tips for delivering a special occasion speech.

Sometimes the speaking opportunities that life brings our way have nothing to do with specifically informing or persuading an audience; instead, we are asked to speak during special occasions in our lives. Whether you are standing up to give a speech at an awards ceremony or a toast at a wedding, knowing how to deliver speeches in a variety of different contexts is the nature of special occasion speaking. In this chapter, we are going to explore what special occasion speeches are as well as several types of special occasion speeches ranging from humorous to somber.

In broad terms, a special occasion speech is designed to honor, celebrate, appreciate, acknowledge, commemorate, or eulogize. Like informative or persuasive speeches, special occasion speeches should communicate a clear message, but the manner of speaking used is typically different. The word “special” in the term “special occasion speeches” is subjective in that while some speaking occasions truly are special occasions (e.g., a toast at a wedding, an acceptance speech at an awards banquet, a eulogy at a funeral for a loved one), they can also be given at more mundane events, such as the hundreds of public relations speeches that big companies give every day. The goal of a special occasion speech is to stir an audience’s emotions and make them feel a certain way in response to the situation or occasion.  The general purpose of a special occasion speech might be “to inspire,” “to celebrate,” “to honor,” or “to entertain.”

To help us think through how to be effective in delivering special occasion speeches, let’s look at four key ingredients: preparation, adaptation to the occasion, adaptation to the audience, and mindfulness about the time.

Four Key Ingredients of Special Occasion Speeches

Be prepared.

First, the biggest mistake you can make when standing to deliver a special occasion speech is to under-prepare or simply not prepare at all. We’ve stressed the need for preparation throughout this text, and special occasion speeches are no exception. You must think through the speech before you stand up and speak out. If the situation is impromptu, like a toast, even jotting down some basic notes on a napkin is better than not having any plan at all for what you are going to say.

Adapt to the Occasion

Not all content is appropriate for all occasions. Wedding toasts are often humorous. If you are asked to deliver a speech commemorating the first anniversary of a school shooting, then obviously telling a joke wouldn’t be appropriate. Commencement speeches at graduation are usually full of energy as they celebrate and inspire the audience. A eulogy, on the other hand, is typically solemn. Being a competent speaker is about being both personally effective and socially appropriate. Different special speaking occasions require different content, but also appropriate levels of formality, seriousness, tone, and demeanor.

Adapt to Your Audience

Be mindful of the time, types of special occasion speeches, speeches of introduction.

A speech of introduction is a short speech given by the host of an event or ceremony that introduces another speaker and their speech. Few things are worse than when the introducer of a speaker stands up and says, “This is Wyatt Ford. He’s going to talk about stress.” While we did learn the speaker’s name and the topic, the introduction falls flat. Just like any other speech, a speech of introduction should be a complete speech and have a clear introduction (beginning), body, and conclusion.

For the introduction element of a speech of introduction, think of a hook that will make your audience interested in the upcoming speaker. Did you read a news article related to the speaker’s topic? Have you been impressed by a presentation that you’ve heard the speaker give in the past? You need to find something that can grab the audience’s attention and make them excited about hearing the main speaker.

The body of your speech should be devoted to three main points.

• First, tell your audience in general terms about the overarching topic of the speech.
• Next, tell the audience why the speaker is a credible presenter on the topic. Has the speaker written books or articles on the subject? Has the speaker had special life events that made them qualified?
• Lastly, you need to briefly explain to the audience why they should care about the upcoming speech. This outline can be adjusted; for example, you can give the biographical information first, but these three areas should be covered.

The conclusion for this type of speech welcomes the speaker to the platform. Many introducers will conclude by saying something like, “I am looking forward to hearing how Wyatt Ford’s advice and wisdom can help all of us today, so please join me in welcoming Dr. Wyatt Ford.” At this point, you as the person introducing the speaker are “handing off” the speaking duties to someone else, so it’s common to end your speech of introduction by clapping as the speaker comes on stage or shaking the speaker’s hand.

Speeches of Presentation

• First, explain what the award or honor is and why the award is important, significant, or special.
• Second, explain what the recipient has accomplished to earn the award. Why is this person the best person for this award? Did the person win a race? Did the person write an important piece of literature? Did the person mediate conflict? Whatever the recipient has done, you need to clearly highlight their work.
• Lastly, if the race or competition was conducted in a public forum and numerous people didn’t win, you may want to recognize those people for their efforts as well. While you don’t want to steal the show away from the winner, you may want to highlight the work of the other competitors or nominees.

Speeches of Acceptance

• First, thank the givers of the award or honor, thank those who helped you achieve your goal, and put the award or honor into perspective. You want to thank the people who have given you the award or honor and possibly those who voted for you.
• Second, you want to give credit to those who helped you achieve the award or honor. No person accomplishes things in life on their own. We all have family members, friends, and colleagues who support us and help us achieve what we do in life, and a speech of acceptance is the time to graciously recognize those individuals.
• Lastly, put the award in perspective. Tell the people listening to your speech why the award is meaningful to you. If you know you are up for an award, the odds of your winning are high. In order to avoid blubbering through an acceptance speech, have one ready. A good rule to remember is: Be thankful, be gracious, be short.

At one time or another, almost everyone is going to be asked to deliver a toast. A toast is a speech designed to congratulate, appreciate, or remember. Toasts can be delivered for the purpose of congratulating someone for an honor, a new job, or getting married. You can also toast someone to show your appreciation for something they have done. Often, we toast people to remember them and what they have accomplished.

When preparing a toast, the first goal is always to keep your remarks brief. Toasts are usually given during the middle of some kind of festive event (e.g., wedding, retirement party, farewell party), and you don’t want your toast to take away from those festivities for too long. Second, the goal of a toast is to focus attention on the person or persons being toasted—not on the speaker.

As such, while you are speaking, you need to focus your attention on the people being toasted, both by physically looking at them and by keeping your message about them. You should also avoid any inside jokes between you and the people being toasted because toasts are public and should be accessible for everyone who hears them. To conclude a toast, simply say something like, “Please join me in recognizing Gina for her achievement” and lift your glass. When you lift your glass, this will signal to others to do the same and then you can all take a drink, which is the end of your speech.

• Praise. Remind the audience what made that person so special. Praise them and their accomplishments. This can include notable achievements, personal qualities or anecdotes and stories.
• Lament. To lament means to express grief or sorrow, which is what everyone at a funeral has gathered to do. You will want to acknowledge that everyone is sad, and that the deceased’s passing will be difficult to get through.
• Console. The last step in a eulogy is to console the audience, or to offer comfort in a time of grief. What you must remember (and many people often forget) is that a eulogy isn’t a speech for the person who has died; it’s a speech for the people who are still living to try to help them deal with the loss. You’ll want to end your eulogy on a positive note. Offer some hope that someday, things will get better. If the deceased was a religious person, this is where you might want to incorporate elements of that belief system.

Speeches of Farewell

Speeches for commencements.

• If there is a specific theme for the graduation, make sure that your commencement speech addresses that theme. If there is no specific theme, come up with one for your speech. Some common commencement speech themes are commitment, competitiveness, competence, confidence, decision making, discipline, ethics, failure (and overcoming failure), faith, generosity, integrity, involvement, leadership, learning, persistence, personal improvement, professionalism, reality, responsibility, and self-respect.
• Talk about your life and how graduates can learn from your experiences to avoid pitfalls or take advantages of life. How can your life inspire the graduates in their future endeavors?
• Make the speech humorous. Commencement speeches should be entertaining and make the audience laugh a bit.
• Be brief! Nothing is more painful than a commencement speaker who drones on and on. Remember, the graduates are there to get their diplomas; their families are there to watch the graduates walk across the stage.
• Remember, while you may be the speaker, you’ve been asked to impart wisdom and advice for the people graduating and moving on with their lives, so keep it focused on them.
• Place the commencement speech into the broader context of the graduates’ lives. Show the graduates how the advice and wisdom you are offering can be utilized to make their own lives better.

Special Occasion Delivery

Your delivery for a special occasion speech will skew in favor of manuscript speaking rather than extemporaneous. While it’s still vital to establish eye contact with your audience and to not sound like you are reading, it’s also important to get the words exactly right because the occasion is special.

You will need to practice your special occasion speech as much as or even more than you did for your informative or persuasive speeches. You need to know what you are going to say and feel comfortable knowing what is coming next. Knowing your speech will also allow you to counteract the flow of adrenaline into your system, something particularly important given that special occasion speeches tend to be very emotional, not just for the audience, but for you as well. Basically, knowing your speech well allows you to incorporate the emotion that a special occasion speech is meant to convey, something that is hard to do when you read the entirety of your speech. In this way your audience will sense the pride you feel for a graduating class during a commencement speech, the sorrow you feel for the deceased during a eulogy, or the gratitude you have when accepting an award.

Special occasion speaking is the most varied type of speaking to cover; however, there are some general rules to keep in mind regardless of what type you are engaged in. Remember that using good, evocative language is key, and that it’s important that you deliver your speech in a way that both conveys the proper emotion for the occasion as well as allows you to give the speech exactly as you wrote it.

Public Speaking as Performance Copyright © 2023 by Mechele Leon is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > The Cambridge Handbook of the Philosophy of Language
• > Speech Acts, Actions, and Events

Book contents

• The Cambridge Handbook of the Philosophy of Language
• Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
• Copyright page
• Contributors
• 1 Philosophy of Language: Definitions, Disciplines, and Approaches
• Part I The Past, Present, and Future of Philosophy of Language
• Part II Some Foundational Issues
• Part III From Truth to Vagueness
• Part IV Issues in Semantics and Pragmatics
• 17 Entailment, Presupposition, Implicature
• 18 Speech Acts, Actions, and Events
• 19 Propositions, Predication, and Assertion
• 20 Events in Semantics
• 21 Semantics and Generative Grammar
• 22 Metasemantics: A Normative Perspective (and the Case of Mood)
• 23 The Normativity of Meaning and Content
• 24 The Semantics and Pragmatics of Value Judgments
• 25 Slurs: Semantic and Pragmatic Theories of Meaning
• Part V Philosophical Implications and Linguistic Theories
• Part VI Some Extensions

18 - Speech Acts, Actions, and Events

from Part IV - Issues in Semantics and Pragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2021

The study of speech acts began with Austin and was prefigured by Wittgenstein. 1 While Frege and Russell focused primarily on the semantics of the expressions of the artificial, formal languages used in logic and mathematics (to articulate truth-apt statements and theories), 2 Wittgenstein (in his later work) drew our attention to the variety of uses to which the expressions of ordinary, naturally occurring languages are put. One technique that he employed for doing so was to describe a number of different “language games” – i.e. “ways of using signs simpler than those in which we use the signs of our highly complicated everyday language” (1969: 17).

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

• Speech Acts, Actions, and Events
• By Brian Ball
• Edited by Piotr Stalmaszczyk
• Book: The Cambridge Handbook of the Philosophy of Language
• Online publication: 12 November 2021
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108698283.019

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The Components of Speech Events and Speech Situation

The use of linguistics has become an important part of the teaching and learning process in and out of the class. It gives knowledge of the rules which controls of language as a system of communication.The speech events are motivating because the contextual factors relation includes. Knowing only grammar is not enough. So language must be appropriate to the condition and contributors. Although people from different social groups interrelate differently, the participants in each group are expected to adopt a specific "way of speaking". The use of language allows one to maintain relationship with other people in an interaction. However, language is a complex phenomenon. In other words, it is not enough just to recognize the meaning of the sentences spoken, but the context of situation and the context of the culture must be tacit, such as it is public or private, formalor informal, whois being spoken, and who might be hear the sentences.By studying sociolinguistics, we can interact politely studying and appropriately in social situations.

Related Papers

LiNGUA: Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa dan Sastra

Syafiyah Syafiyah

Aliran Sociolinguistik sebagai respon dari aliran linguistik yang dipelopori oleh Chomsky memberikan pandangan baru terhadap hakekat bahasa. Menurut aliran ini bahasa tidak dipandang sebagai aturan-aturan gramatikal formal semata, tetapi lebih sebagai alat komunikasi. Memahami bahasa manusia berarti memahami bagaimana manusia berkomunikasi satu sama lain dan bagaimana proses komunikasi terjadi. Memahami hakekat bahasa sama saja dengan memahami bagaimana bahasa itu berfungsi di tengah masyarakat. Menguasai bahasa berarti memiliki kompetensi komunikatif, yaitu kemampuan untuk menggunakan bahasa dengan benar dan tepat sesuai dengan konteks sosial. Kompetensi komunikatif meliputi kompetensi linguistik, kompetensi sosiolinguistik, kompetensi wacana dan kompetensi strategis. Dalam ranah metodologi pembelajaran bahasa, aliran tersebut melahirkan pendekatan pembelajaran bahasa komunikatif )Communicative Approach(. <br />

Ahmad faizin

Pengajaranbahasaberkaitandengansosiolinguistikdalamberbagaicara. Faktorsosial yang berbedamempengaruhipengajarandanpembelajaranbahasa.Tulisaninimengkajihubunganantarasosialinguistikdanpengajaranbahasa.Beberapafaktorsosialsepertisituasikonteks, dan settingsosialmemilikiperandalampembelajaranbahasa.Sosiolinguistikmenjelaskantentangfaktor-faktorutama yang mempengaruhipemilihanlinguisticdanmenjelaskanseberapabaikpengajaransaatinidalammemanfaatkanfaktor-faktortersebut.Sosiolinguistikjugamenelaahberbagaivariasidalampenggunaanbahasayang digunakanoleh orang yang memilikiberbagaikarakter.

Syifa Anindya

Language in Society

Blackfish Tata

Nur Fadhilah bahar

Fitri Fatika Astini

Fitri Fatika

Praise be to the presence of Allah SWT who has given grace and guidance so that we can complete the paper assignment entitled "The relationship between language and social context of society" on time. The aim of writing this paper is to fulfill the assignment of Mam Yuliana S. Pd, M.Pd in the Second Language Acquisition course. Apart from that, this paper also aims to increase insight into Sociolinguistics for readers and writers. We would like to thank Mam Yuliana S.Pd, M.Pd as the Lecturer in the Second Language Acquisition Course who has given us this assignment so that we can increase our knowledge and insight according to the field of study we are studying. We realize that the paper we wrote is still far from perfect. Therefore, we look forward to constructive criticism and suggestions for the perfection of this paper.

Arah Manialung

Saeed Rezaei

Kinh Tế Học

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Abdelkarim Hammadi

Language Learning

Abdulwahid Khandarash

Benjamin Bailey

alireza dabbaghi

TEACHING SOCIOLINGUISTICS, THE METHODOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES OF TEACHING SOCIOLINGUISTICS AT THE SENIOR COURSES.pdf

The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis (Editors: Gee & Handford)

Jürgen Jaspers

Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Innovation in Education (ICoIE 2018)

Ahmad Kosasih

Rolando Blas

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

Arthur K Spears

Febri Cris Monica

The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics

Petros Karatsareas

Abdallah Dardeer

Esron Ambarita

Faiz Sathi Abdullah

pedzisai shava

saman Merawdaly

Mónica Belda-Torrijos

Hikmat Ahmed

Gerald Raphela

International Journal of Linguistics

Eva Tuckyta Sari Sujatna

ALELIGN A S C H A L E WUDIE

Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research

douglas maynard

Theory and Practice in Language Studies

Ngatmini Ngatmini

REGISTER JOURNAL IAIN Salatiga

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Module 2: Informative Speaking

Types of informative speeches.

In the last section we examined how informative speakers need to be objective, credible, knowledgeable, and how they need to make the topic relevant to their audience. This section discusses the four primary types of informative speeches. These include definitional speeches, descriptive speeches, explanatory speeches, and demonstration speeches.

Definitional Speeches

In definitional speeches the speaker attempts to set forth the meaning of concepts, theories, philosophies, or issues that may be unfamiliar to the audience. In these types of speeches, speakers may begin by giving the historical derivation, classification, or synonyms of terms or the background of the subject. In a speech on “How to identify a sociopath,” the speaker may answer these questions: Where did the word ‘sociopath’ come from? What is a sociopath? How many sociopaths are there in the population? What are the symptoms? Carefully define your terminology to give shape to things the audience cannot directly sense. Describing the essential attributes of one concept compared to another (as through use of analogies) can increase understanding as well. For a speech on “Elderly Abuse,” the speaker may compare this type of abuse to child or spousal abuse for contrast.

Regardless of the listeners’ level of knowledge about the subject, it is very important in these types of speeches to show the relevance of the topic to their lives. Often the topics discussed in definitional speeches are abstract—distanced from reality. So provide explicit, real-life examples and applications of the subject matter. If you were going to give a speech about civil rights, you would need to go beyond commonly held meanings and show the topic in a new light. In this type of speech, the speaker points out the unique and distinguishing properties or boundaries of a concept in a particular context (Rinehart, 2002). The meaning of “civil rights” has changed significantly over time. What does it mean today compared to the 1960s? How will knowing this distinction help audience members? What are some specific incidents involving civil rights issues in current news? What changes in civil rights legislation might listeners see in their lifetimes?

Sample Definitional Speech Outline

Title: “Life is suffering,” and Other Buddhist Teachings (Thompson, 1999)

Specific Purpose: At the end of my speech, my audience will understand the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path in Buddhism

Central Idea: Regardless of your religious beliefs, Buddhist philosophy teaches a number of useful lessons you can apply to your own life.

• All life involves dukkha (suffering)
• Suffering is caused by tanha (longing for things to be other than they are)
• If this longing stops ( nirodha ), suffering will cease
• The way to eliminate longing is to follow the Eightfold Path
• Right intention
• Right speech
• Right action
• Right livelihood
• Right effort
• Right mindfulness
• Right contemplation

Descriptive Speeches

To gaze in wonder at that magnificent dome and elegant gardens will be a moment that you remember for the rest of your life. The Taj Mahal just takes your breath away. What is immediately striking is its graceful symmetry—geometric lines run through formal gardens ending in a white marble platform. Atop this platform is great white bulbous dome complemented by four towering minarets in each corner. The whole image shimmers in a reflecting pool flanked by beautiful gardens—the effect is magical. The first stretch by the reflecting pool is where most people pose for their photos. But we were impressed by the fresh, green gardens. As you approach through the gardens two mosques come into view flanking the Taj—both exquisitely carved and built of red sandstone.

In the descriptive speech, determine the characteristics, features, functions, or fine points of the topic. What makes the person unique? How did the person make you feel? What adjectives apply to the subject? What kind of material is the object made from? What shape is it? What color is it? What does it smell like? Is it part of a larger system? Can it be seen by the naked eye? What is its geography or location in space? How has it changed or evolved over time? How does it compare to a similar object? When preparing for the speech, try to think of ways to appeal to as many of the senses as possible. As an example, in a speech about different types of curried dishes, you could probably verbally describe the difference between yellow, red, and green curry, but the speech will have more impact if the audience can see, smell, and taste samples.

Sample Descriptive Speech Outline

Specific Purpose: At the end of my speech, my audience will be able to visualize some of the main attractions on Easter Island.

Central Idea: Easter Island hosts a number of ancient, mysterious, and beautiful attractions that make it an ideal vacation destination.

• Average 13 feet high; 14 tons
• Play sacred role for Rapa Nui (native inhabitants)
• Central Ahu ceremonial sites
• Snorkeling & Scuba
• Giant crater
• Sheer cliffs to ocean

Be able to describe anything visual, such as a street scene, in words that convey your meaning. ~ Marilyn vos Savant

Explanatory Speeches

An explanatory speech (also known as a briefing) is similar to the descriptive speech in that they both share the function of clarifying the topic. But explanatory speeches focus on reports of current and historical events, customs, transformations, inventions, policies, outcomes, and options. Whereas descriptive speeches attempt to paint a picture with words so that audiences can vicariously experience it, explanatory speeches focus on the how or why of a subject and its consequences. Thus, a speaker might give a descriptive speech on the daily life of Marie Antoinette, or an explanatory speech on how she came to her death. Recall that definitional speeches focus on delineating concepts or issues. In this case, a speaker might give a definitional speech about the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, or an explanatory speech on why the financial bailout was necessary for U.S. financial stability.

If a manager wanted to inform employees about a new workplace internet use policy, s/he might cover questions like: Why was a policy implemented? How will it help? What happens if people do not follow established policies? Explanatory speeches are less concerned with appealing to the senses than connecting the topic to a series of related other subjects to enhance a deep understanding (McKerrow, Gronbeck, Ehninger, & Monroe, 2000). For example, to explain the custom of the Thai wai greeting (hands pressed together as in prayer), you also need to explain how it originated to show one had no weapons, and the ways it is tied to religion, gender, age, and status.

Sample Explanatory Speech Outline

Title: Giant Waves, Death, and Devastation: The 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami (National Geographic, 2006)

Specific Purpose: At the end of my speech, my audience will be aware of the nature of the 2004 Tsunami and the destruction it caused.

Central Idea: The 2004 Asian Tsunami was one of the worst natural disasters in human history in terms of magnitude, loss of human life, and enduring impact.

• Earthquake epicenter and magnitude
• Tsunami forms (waves reach up to 100 feet)
• Tsunami strikes land of various countries with no warning
• The countries and people involved
• Loss of food, water, hospitals, housing, electricity, and plumbing
• Threat of disease
• Environmental destruction
• Economic devastation
• Psychological trauma

I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. – Confucious

Demonstration Speeches

The most practical of all informative speeches, a demonstration speech shows listeners how some process is accomplished or how to perform it themselves. The focus is on a chronological explanation of some process (how potato chips are made), procedure (how to fight fires on a submarine), application (how to use the calendar function in Outlook), or course of action (how court cases proceed to Supreme Court status). Speakers might focus on processes that have a series of steps with a specific beginning and end (how to sell a home by yourself) or the process may be continuous (how to maintain the hard drive on your computer to prevent crashes). Demonstration speeches can be challenging to write due to the fact that the process may involve several objects, a set of tools, materials, or a number of related relationships or events (Rinehart, 2002). Nevertheless, these types of speeches provide the greatest opportunity for audience members to get involved or apply the information later.

When preparing this speech, remember first to keep the safety of the audience in mind. One speaker severely burned his professor when he accidently spilled hot oil from a wok on her. Another student nearly took the heads off listeners when he was demonstrating how to swing a baseball bat. Keep in mind also that you may need to bring in examples or pictures of completed steps in order to make efficient use of your time. Just think of the way that cooking demonstrations are done on TV—the ingredients are premeasured, the food is premixed, and the mixture magically goes from uncooked to cooked in a matter of seconds. Finally, if you are having your audience participate during your presentation (making an origami sculpture), know what their knowledge level is so that you don’t make them feel unintelligent if they are not successful. Practice your speech with friends who know nothing about the topic to gauge if listeners can do what you are asking them to do in the time allotted.

Sample Demonstration Speech Outline

Title: How to Survive if You Get Stranded in the Wilderness (U.S. Department of Defense, 2006).

Specific Purpose: At the end of my speech my audience will understand what to do if they unexpectedly become stranded in the wilderness.

Central Idea: You can greatly improve your ability to stay alive and safe in the wilderness by learning a few simple survival techniques.

• Size up the surroundings
• Size up your physical and mental states
• Size up your equipment (handout “What to Include in a Survival Kit”)
• Obtaining water
• Acquiring food
• Building a fire
• Locating shelter
• Call or signal rescue personnel
• Wilderness navigation
• Leaving “bread crumb” trail
• Chapter 15 Types of Informative Speeches. Authored by : Lisa Schreiber, Ph.D.. Provided by : Millersville University, Millersville, PA. Located at : http://publicspeakingproject.org/psvirtualtext.html . Project : Public Speaking Project. License : CC BY-NC-ND: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
• Taj Mahal, Agra, India. Authored by : Yann. Located at : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Taj_Mahal,_Agra,_India.jpg . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Maoi at Rano Raraku. Authored by : Aurbina. Located at : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moai_Rano_raraku.jpg . License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright

Privacy Policy

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

18.1 Understanding Entertaining Speeches

Learning objectives.

• Understand the purpose of entertaining speeches.
• Explain the four ingredients of a good entertaining speech.

Chris Hill – Chris Hoy – Acceptance Speech – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

In broad terms, an entertaining speech is a speech designed to captivate an audience’s attention and regale or amuse them while delivering a message. Like more traditional informative or persuasive speeches, entertaining speeches should communicate a clear message, but the manner of speaking used in an entertaining speech is typically different. Entertaining speeches are often delivered on special occasions (e.g., a toast at a wedding, an acceptance speech at an awards banquet, a motivational speech at a conference), which is why they are sometimes referred to as special-occasion speeches. However, they can also be given on more mundane occasions, where their purpose is primarily to amuse audience members or arouse them emotionally in some way. Remember, when we use the word “entertain,” we are referring not just to humor but also to drama. The goal of an entertaining speech is to stir an audience’s emotions.

Of all the types of speeches we come in contact with during our lives, the bulk of them will probably fall into the category of entertainment. If you spend just one evening watching a major awards show (e.g., the Grammys, the Tonys, the Oscars), you’ll see dozens of acceptance speeches. While some of these acceptance speeches are good and others may be terrible, they all belong in the category of speaking to entertain.

Other speeches that fall into the entertaining category are designed to inspire or motivate an audience to do something. These are, however, different from a traditional persuasive speech. While entertaining speeches are often persuasive, we differentiate the two often based on the rhetorical situation itself. Maybe your school has hired a speaker to talk about his or her life story in an attempt to inspire the audience to try harder in school and reach for the best that life has to offer. You can imagine how this speech would be different from a traditional persuasive speech focusing on, say, the statistics related to scholastic achievement and success later in life.

Entertaining speeches are definitely very common, but that doesn’t mean they don’t require effort and preparation. A frequent trap is that people often think of entertaining speeches as corny. As a result, they don’t prepare seriously but rather stand up to speak with the idea that they can “wing it” by acting silly and telling a few jokes. Instead of being entertaining, the speech falls flat. To help us think through how to be effective in delivering entertaining speeches, let’s look at four key ingredients: preparation, adaptation to the occasion, adaptation to the audience, and mindfulness about the time.

Be Prepared

First, and foremost, the biggest mistake you can make when standing to deliver an entertaining speech is to underprepare or simply not prepare at all. We’ve stressed the need for preparation throughout this text, so just because you’re giving a wedding toast or a eulogy doesn’t mean you shouldn’t think through the speech before you stand up and speak out. If the situation is impromptu, even jotting some basic notes on a napkin is better than not having any plan for what you are going to say. Remember, when you get anxious, as it inevitably happens in front of an audience, your brain doesn’t function as well as when you are having a relaxed conversation with friends. You often forget information. By writing down some simple notes, you’ll be less likely to deliver a bad speech.

Be Adaptive to the Occasion

Not all content is appropriate for all occasions. If you are asked to deliver a speech commemorating the first anniversary of a school shooting, then obviously using humor and telling jokes wouldn’t be appropriate. But some decisions about adapting to the occasion are less obvious. Consider the following examples:

• You are the maid of honor giving a toast at the wedding of your younger sister.
• You are receiving a Most Valuable Player award in your favorite sport.
• You are a sales representative speaking to a group of clients after a mistake has been discovered.
• You are a cancer survivor speaking at a high school student assembly.

How might you adapt your message and speaking style to successfully entertain these various audiences?

Remember that being a competent speaker is about being both personally effective and socially appropriate. Different occasions will call for different levels of social appropriateness. One of the biggest mistakes entertaining speakers can make is to deliver one generic speech to different groups without adapting the speech to the specific occasion. In fact, professional speakers always make sure that their speeches are tailored for different occasions by getting information about the occasion from their hosts. When we tailor speeches for special occasions, people are more likely to remember those speeches than if we give a generic speech.

Be Adaptive to Your Audience

Once again, we cannot stress the importance of audience adaptation enough in this text. Different audiences will respond differently to speech material, so the more you know about your audience the more likely you’ll succeed in your speech. One of our coauthors was once at a conference for teachers of public speaking. The keynote speaker stood and delivered a speech on the importance of public speaking. While the speaker was good and funny, the speech really fell flat. The keynote speaker basically told the public speaking teachers that they should take public speaking courses because public speaking is important. Right speech, wrong audience!

Be Mindful of the Time

The last major consideration for delivering entertaining speeches successfully is to be mindful of your time. Different entertaining speech situations have their own conventions and rules with regard to time. Acceptance speeches and toasts, for example, should be relatively short (typically under five minutes). A speech of introduction should be extremely brief—just long enough to tell the audience what they need to know about the person being introduced in a style that prepares them to appreciate that person’s remarks. In contrast, commencement speeches and speeches to commemorate events can run ten to twenty minutes in length.

It’s also important to recognize that audiences on different occasions will expect speeches of various lengths. For example, although it’s true that graduation commencement speakers generally speak for ten to twenty minutes, the closer that speaker heads toward twenty minutes the more fidgety the audience becomes. To hold the audience’s attention and fulfill the goal of entertaining, a commencement speaker would do well to make the closing minutes of the speech the most engaging and inspiring portion of the speech. If you’re not sure about the expected time frame for a speech, either ask the person who has invited you to speak or do some quick research to see what the average speech times in the given context tend to be.

Key Takeaways

• Entertaining speeches are speeches designed to captivate an audience’s attention and regale or amuse them while delivering a clear message. Speakers engage in entertaining speeches generally at special occasions (e.g., weddings, funerals) or are asked to deliver a keynote address.
• Entertaining speeches should include four key considerations: preparation, adaptation to the occasion, adaptation to the audience, and mindfulness of the time. As with all speeches, speakers need to prepare the speech. Second, speakers need to think about the specific occasion. Third, speakers need to adapt their speeches to the specific audience. Lastly, speakers need to think about how long they should speak.
• Type in the word “roast” into YouTube and watch a few minutes of a roast. Did the speaker clearly exhibit the four clear ingredients of an entertaining speech?
• Watch several toasts and acceptance speeches on YouTube. Can you identify specific ways in which each speaker adapts the speech to the occasion and the audience?

Stand up, Speak out Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Press Herald

Account Subscription: ACTIVE

Questions about your account? Our customer service team can be reached at [email protected] during business hours at (207) 791-6000 .

Supreme Court defers on state online content moderation laws

Lower courts must better define the stakes of free-speech issues in the disputes, the high court decided.

You are able to gift 5 more articles this month.

Anyone can access the link you share with no account required. Learn more .

With a Press Herald subscription, you can gift 5 articles each month.

It looks like you do not have any active subscriptions. To get one, go to the subscriptions page .

Loading....

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court sent back to lower courts Monday two challenges to Florida and Texas laws regulating social media platforms, deciding that the judges had to better define the stakes of free-speech issues in the disputes.

The opinion covering both cases kept alive the lawsuits over the state laws that seek to regulate Meta, Alphabet, X and other social media companies within state borders.

The ruling essentially prolongs challenges that could shake up how social media companies operate and define how lawmakers could regulate social media companies.

Texas and Florida enacted the laws as part of a conservative backlash to perceived “censorship” of conservative views by major social media platforms, and they included requirements that those sites have a detailed explanation and appeals process when users are blocked.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court’s majority, said the lower courts had to do more work to lay out the legal issues in the cases for the Supreme Court to weigh in.

Kagan wrote that “no one paid much attention” to exactly what the laws covered and whether all the laws’ applications were constitutional or not. Advertisement

“The online world is variegated and complex, encompassing an ever-growing number of apps, services, functionalities, and methods for communication and connection. Each might (or might not) have to change because of the provisions, as to either content moderation or individualized explanation, in Florida’s or Texas’s law,” Kagan wrote.

The decision sends the cases back to the U.S. courts of appeal for the 5th and 11th Circuit, and it means the Supreme Court will still likely revisit the issue in the future.

The two cases stem from laws in Texas and Florida that would restrict how the largest social media sites and other online platforms moderate their content and require them to explain to an account holder whenever they do remove or alter a post.

The states have argued that the laws would prevent online platforms from discriminating against anyone online based on their viewpoints and ensure transparency in the content moderation process for social media platforms that carry much of public discourse nationwide.

Industry groups, free-speech advocates and the Biden administration argued that the laws violate the First Amendment rights of social media companies, who should not be forced to host speech that they do not want to or be forced to explain their moderation decisions.

More discussion Advertisement

Separate from the basic outcome, Kagan wrote for a six-justice majority criticizing the 5th Circuit decision that upheld the Texas law and stating that social media content moderation is free speech protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

“Deciding on the third-party speech that will be included in or excluded from a compilation — and then organizing and presenting the included items — is expressive activity of its own,” Kagan write.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote separately, largely agreeing with the majority, but also raising concerns that technology, including algorithm-based content moderation and artificial intelligence may affect the constitutionality of internet regulation.

Barrett wrote that challenging the laws broadly “likely forces a court to bite off more than it can chew” and said that social media companies may be better served challenging the laws’ application piecemeal.

“While the governing constitutional principles are straightforward, applying them in one fell swoop to the entire social-media universe is not,” Barrett wrote.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch, criticized the court’s majority’s “broad ambition” that shot down the 5th Circuit’s approach to the social media laws and raised concerns about the power of social media companies. Advertisement

“Social-media platforms are diverse, and each may be unique in potentially significant ways,” Alito said, writing that the court should not have made such broad statements about the free-speech protections of content moderation.

Alito wrote that the justices should give “serious treatment” to the idea that social media platforms are common carriers that could be regulated like phone companies, and forced to carry all messages that meet general terms.

The laws have some differences, which came up during oral arguments, such as how the Florida law includes up to $100,000 in damages for violations but the Texas law does not.

In a separate case this term, the justices tossed an effort by Republican-led states and social media users to limit communications between the Biden administration and social media companies over alleged censorship of conservative views online.

Modify your screen name

Join the Conversation

Please sign into your Press Herald account to participate in conversations below. If you do not have an account, you can register or subscribe . Questions? Please see our FAQs .

Your commenting screen name has been updated.

Send questions/comments to the editors.

« Previous

Supreme Court allows swipe-fee lawsuit in blow to regulators

Next »

Boeing is buying stressed supplier Spirit for $4.7 billion

Biz Headlines

• Enter email address
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Fungus takes toll on Maine’s browntail moth populations

Corrections union wants cumberland county sheriff removed from office, endangered atlantic salmon population takes a hit after river dredged in phillips, maine’s medical cannabis market had its boom. is it in a bust, jury rules landlord can’t evict former portland mayor strimling, member log in.

Please enter your username and password below. Already a subscriber but don't have one? Click here .

Not a subscriber? Click here to see your options