Download Free Crimes Against The English Language Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Crimes Against The English Language and write the review.

Wretched writing is the lowest of the low; it is a felonious assault on the English language. Exuberantly excessive, it is a sin committed often by amateurs and all-too-frequently by gifted writers having an off day. In short, it’s very bad writing. Truly bad. Appallingly bad. It’s also very funny. A celebration of the worst writing imaginable, Wretched Writing includes inadvertently filthy book titles, ridiculously overwrought passages from novels, bombastic and confusing speeches, moronic oxymorons, hyperactive hyperbole, horribly inappropriate imagery in ostensibly hot sex scenes, mangled clichés, muddled metaphors, and unintended double entendres. Sit back and enjoy these deliciously dreadful samples, and try not to cringe too much.
By the author of "Atlantic Monthly's" highly popular column "Word Court" comes an engaging grammar guide for lovers of language, a national bestseller now in paperback.
In this book Greenawalt explores the three-way relationship between the idea of freedom of speech, the law of crimes, and the many uses of language. He begins by considering free speech as a political principle, and after a thorough and incisive analysis of the justifications commonly advanced for freedom of speech, looks at the kinds of communications to which the principle of free speech applies. He then turns to an examination of communications for which criminal liability is fixed. Focusing on threats and solicitations to crime, Greenawalt attempts to determine whether liability for such communications seriously conflicts with freedom of speech. In the second half of the book he goes on to develop the significance of his conclusions for American constitutional law, addressing such questions as what should be considered "speech" within the meaning of the First Amendment, and what tests the courts should employ in deciding whether particular criminal statutes should be held constitutional. He concludes that the issues are too complex to yield simple solutions, and insists that the protection of the First Amendment can be reduced neither to one justification nor to one all-purpose test of coverage.