other words for speech delivered

Deliver a speech synonyms

What is another word for deliver a speech .

• speak address group
• harangue address group
• orate address group
• pitch address group
• stump address group
• give a talk
• give speech
• make a speech
• give a speech
• deliver speech
• holding forth
• address group

Search for synonyms and antonyms

delivered a speech > synonyms

• 57 Synonyms

List search

• ??? - shows 3-letter terms
• a??e - 4-letter terms starting with 'a' and ending with 'e'
• a* - terms starting with 'a'
• *ment - terms ending with 'ment'

If nothing is found, then alternative search will try to find the terms that:

• start with searched query
• sound like it
• similar to it

Support us by sharing "synonyms for delivered a speech" page!

Share on Facebook | Twitter

• Searched With
• deliver a speech

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Synonyms and antonyms of speech in English

Synonyms and examples, see words related to speech, speech | american thesaurus.

Word of the Day

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

an area of land that has not been used to grow crops or had towns and roads built on it, especially because it is difficult to live in as a result of its extremely cold or hot weather or bad earth

Fakes and forgeries (Things that are not what they seem to be)

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists

To add ${headword} to a word list please sign up or log in.

Add ${headword} to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

Synonyms of speeches

• as in talks
• as in tongues
• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

Thesaurus Definition of speeches

Synonyms & Similar Words

• presentations
• declamations
• perorations
• keynote speeches
• soliloquies
• keynote addresses
• salutatories
• vocabularies
• mother tongues
• vernaculars
• colloquialisms
• terminologies
• regionalisms
• shibboleths
• vernacularisms
• provincialisms
• colloquials

Thesaurus Entries Near speeches

speech form

Cite this Entry

“Speeches.” Merriam-Webster.com Thesaurus , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/speeches. Accessed 2 Jul. 2024.

More from Merriam-Webster on speeches

Nglish: Translation of speeches for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of speeches for Arabic Speakers

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

Plural and possessive names: a guide, commonly misspelled words, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), absent letters that are heard anyway, how to use accents and diacritical marks, popular in wordplay, it's a scorcher words for the summer heat, flower etymologies for your spring garden, 12 star wars words, 'swash', 'praya', and 12 more beachy words, 8 words for lesser-known musical instruments, games & quizzes.

Free Speech

A Government Veto on Speech at the Supreme Court

Murthy v. missouri challenges government efforts to suppress dissenting viewpoints on social media..

Thomas W. Hazlett | 6.26.2024 9:55 AM

UPDATE: The Court has issued a 6–3 decision in Murthy v. Missouri , holding that the plaintiffs lack standing.

A case pending at the U.S. Supreme Court stems from the efforts a multitude of federal agencies made to remove certain viewpoints from public view. In other words, they sought to abridge freedom of speech —you know, that thing that the First Amendment explicitly bans.

The case, Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden ), may support or overturn the 5th Circuit's ruling that the government violated the First Amendment to reduce the circulation of viewpoints that various agencies believed noxious. This included, the court noted in its decision, controversies surrounding the "COVID-19 lab-leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side-effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story."

In many cases, the speech that offended the government has proven demonstrably true—the high social cost of school closings, for example, or the provenance of Hunter Biden's laptop. But the central problem is that the government sought, and often succeeded, in blocking free expression. Rather than engage in free and open debate, the government sought to squash it.

Speakers who were targeted for silencing—such as Jay Bhattacharya , a Stanford professor of medicine and economics—sued the government. The primary evidence came from caches of correspondence revealing government administrators cajoling, berating, swearing at, and arguably threatening (with policy sanctions) executives at Twitter, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Spotify.

A Louisiana judge issued extensive injunctions that barred a variety of officials and agencies from "meeting with social-media companies for the purpose of…pressuring or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression or reduction of content containing protected free speech." This was largely upheld on appeal, and the Supreme Court accepted a review, with a hearing held this past March.

During oral arguments, the government suggested that these officials merely "sought to mitigate the hazards of online misinformation" by "calling attention to content" that violated the "platforms' policies." A pro-government amicus brief by the Brennan Center argued that "communications by government officials—even emphatic ones—are an exercise of the government's prerogative to voice its own views and are consistent with the First Amendment as long as the ultimate decision regards content rests with the platforms themselves."

Yet the principal deputy solicitor general, representing the federal government, readily conceded that officials do not enjoy First Amendment protection for such speech, only the ability to inform the public as part of their job-related duties. The constitutional protection of free speech lies with the speakers (who in this case were targeted and suppressed) and the public (who would benefit from having unfettered access to differing viewpoints).

Regrettably, the justices seemed to identify with the state. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, recalling his years serving in George W. Bush's White House, commented: "It's probably not uncommon for government officials to protest an upcoming story on surveillance or detention policy and say, you know, if you run that, it's going to harm the war effort and put Americans at…risk." Justice Elena Kagan chimed in: "I've had some experience encouraging press to suppress their own speech. 'You just wrote a bad editorial. Here are the five reasons you shouldn't write another one'….This happens literally thousands of times a day in the federal government."

Buttressing the claim that it was standard operating procedure for government officials to complain was the fact that many times the platform executives had cooperated with the government, endorsed a "partnership," and appeared to welcome state influence.

But if the state is victorious in this suit, the genius of the First Amendment will be collateral damage.

"The purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights…was to take government off the backs of people," wrote Justice William O. Douglas in Schneider v. Smith . "The First Amendment's ban against Congress 'abridging' freedom of speech [creates] a preserve where the views of the individual are made inviolate." Law professor Lucas Powe—once a clerk for Douglas—expanded: "Our traditions are clear. A fair press, as determined by a government mechanism, is not a free press. A free press may be fair; we hope it will not be irresponsible; but…for the press to serve as a check on the government it must be free to gather and report information about government and those who do or would govern."

The evidence in Murthy shows that the U.S. government actively monitors online discussions, targets speech that breaks no laws, and then aggressively requests that the speech's distribution be reduced or labeled as dubious or false. Government officials are free to make such points in open debate, but a Truth Squad operating behind the scenes violates the spirit and letter of the Constitution.

The Institute for Free Speech recommends a clarifying bright-line rule: "The government violates the First Amendment whenever it requests the removal of lawful political speech. There is no need to determine whether the request is 'coercive.'"

Private owners of media platforms enjoy First Amendment rights, and they are indeed constitutionally protected in determining whether to agree with one side or the other in moderating platform discussions. But when public resources are used to banish rival opinions, a constitutional boundary is crossed. 

Alas, the U.S. has failed this test before. In the long-running error that allowed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate broadcast TV and radio content under policies like the Fairness Doctrine, rules were not explicitly stated and the public was rarely informed. Instead, the commission engaged in what was known as "regulation by raised eyebrow." If a broadcaster did not refrain from engaging in controversial programming, as determined by FCC bureaucrats (perhaps acting on congressional or White House requests), it would risk costly challenges to its operating license. The raised eyebrow threatened free speech by transmitting political demands without a paper trail.

The First Amendment did not allow this form of government control with respect to newspapers, or even in the case of franchised cable TV operators, but the government seized a loophole in over-the-air transmission supposedly based on the "physical scarcity" of the radio spectrum. If applied today, this bogus justification for content regulation would absurdly allow the FCC to force The New York Times to give free editorial columns to critics, given that most subscribers receive the digital edition delivered via radio waves (Wi-Fi, 4G, 5G).

In the key legal test of the Fairness Doctrine, 1969's Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC , the Supreme Court recognized the lethality of subtle threats. While the Court allowed the Fairness Doctrine to stand, rejecting the First Amendment challenge to end it (which finally did happen via a Reagan-era FCC), it observed that a chilling effect could be triggered by rules requiring free (unpaid) equal time for opposing views: If broadcasters would consequently "eliminate their coverage of controversial issues, the purposes of the [fairness] doctrine would be stifled." Yet the Court dismissed the harm as merely speculative. 

The Court was wrong: the case was, in fact, brought as part of a Kennedy-Johnson campaign aimed at filing Fairness Doctrine complaints to "harass and intimidate" anti-Administration broadcasters, as revealed in Fred Friendly's 1975 book, "The Good Guys, the Bad Guys, and the First Amendment."

Whatever one's views of the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, it is clear that many people (experts included) have changed their minds about them. It is well to recall that in October 2020, for example, MSNBC hosts denounced the Trump administration for rushing the Moderna and Pfizer shots to the public. The network appears to view things differently now. This should surprise no one. What would be shocking would be a situation where any group, including government experts, never let their understanding of the truth evolve. That's one reason freedom of debate is key.

Consider one of the most colossal censorship errors ever made in a free, democratic republic. In 1934, Winston Churchill's speech condemning "the danger of ignoring German rearmament" aired over the national radio system, the BBC. Churchill was then silenced—for six years the BBC barred his appearance. Only in 1940, when Hitler was marching through Europe, World War II had come to England's doorstep, and Winston Churchill was prime minister would his anti-Hitler message again be heard on the nation's airwaves. Whatever the chances that Churchill's plan of a tough-minded, preemptive move to block Adolf Hitler may have averted the "gathering storm," the tens of millions who died in the horrors of World War II would never know.

By suppressing his speech, the BBC's censors—the disinformation board of its time—likely contributed to carnage. In lieu of saving face for officials running the policy show, the lower-risk path would be to let competing viewpoints bloom. It's the profound gift of a rule prohibiting government's veto power over free speech.

Brickbat: A Picture's Worth 1,000 Words

Charles Oliver | 7.2.2024 4:00 AM

Sacramento Cops Shared License Plate Data With Anti-Abortion States

Joe Lancaster | 7.1.2024 4:55 PM

Louisiana Parents Sue Over Law Mandating 10 Commandments Displays in Classrooms

Emma Camp | 7.1.2024 4:37 PM

Supreme Court's Presidential Immunity Ruling Could Shield Outrageous Abuses of Power

Jacob Sullum | 7.1.2024 2:55 PM

Social Media Moderation Is Speech, Says Supreme Court

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 7.1.2024 12:00 PM

• Daily Crossword
• Word Puzzle
• Word Finder
• Word of the Day
• Synonym of the Day
• Word of the Year
• Language stories
• All featured
• Gender and sexuality
• All pop culture
• Writing hub
• Grammar essentials
• Commonly confused
• All writing tips
• Pop culture
• Writing tips

Advertisement

noun as in transfer, transmittal

Strongest matches

consignment , distribution , shipment , transmission

Strong matches

carting , commitment , conveyance , dispatch , drop , mailing , portage , post , rendition , surrender

Weak matches

freighting , giving over , handing over , impartment , intrusting , parcel post

noun as in articulation of message

accent , diction , elocution , emphasis , enunciation , inflection , intonation , modulation , pronunciation , speech , utterance

noun as in childbirth

Strongest match

accouchement , bearing , birthing , childbearing , confinement , labor , lying-in , parturition , travail

bringing forth , Caesarian section , geniture

noun as in giving of freedom

deliverance , emancipation , escape , freeing , liberation , pardon , rescue , salvage , salvation

Discover More

Example sentences.

To combat the declines in their traditional businesses, Uber continued its push into consumer delivery, while Lyft announced a push into business-to-business logistics.

You pick anything you want — you don’t have to cook it, order it, wait two hours, or pay a delivery fee — you just take a plate and step up.

Others, such as meal kits and wine delivery, have gotten more traction than usual.

It makes sense as e-commerce and on demand delivery isn’t a flash in the pan fad, per Cavaluzzo.

Grocery delivery services charge a fee — usually around $10 per $100 spent, on average.

Should capability delivery experience additional changes, this estimate will be revised appropriately.

It also helps pilots orientate themselves during weapons delivery passes.

And this week it was Mister Ham, General Delivery, United States.

Fewer women are shackled during labor and delivery (PDF), though this still occurs.

A powdered form of the measles vaccine could make delivery safer and easier around the world.

A delivery of a policy therefore, to an insurance broker, would be a delivery to his principal.

If the offeree sent a telegram, then he would be obliged to prove the delivery of the dispatch.

There must be an actual delivery by him, and though a deed may be completed in every other respect, it is not an effective deed.

Suppose a deed were mailed to the grantee, or handed to another person to deliver to the grantee, this would be a good delivery.

The contract becomes complete when the policy is put in the mail, postage prepaid, for delivery in due course to the insured.

Related Words

Words related to delivery are not direct synonyms, but are associated with the word delivery . Browse related words to learn more about word associations.

noun as in birth

• childbearing
• parturition

noun as in something that makes it to a destination

• representative

noun as in clear, coherent speech

• enunciation
• pronunciation
• verbalization
• vocalization

noun as in manner of conducting oneself

• comportment
• performance
• savoir-faire
• social graces
• way of life
• what's done

Viewing 5 / 47 related words

On this page you'll find 138 synonyms, antonyms, and words related to delivery, such as: consignment, distribution, shipment, transmission, carting, and commitment.

From Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus, Third Edition Copyright © 2013 by the Philip Lief Group.

Newsom attacks ‘delusional California bashers’ in unorthodox speech

• Copy Link URL Copied!

Gov. Gavin Newsom took on “delusional California bashers” and lauded the state’s economic prowess and inclusive values in an unorthodox State of the State speech that he shared in a video Tuesday on social media.

Repeating familiar tropes of past political speeches, Newsom cast the state as a force of light against dark conservative forces. He boasted about California’s work to protect civil rights and attacked Republicans in other states for “telling a woman she’s not in charge of her own body.”

“Our values and our way of life are the antidote to the poisonous populism of the right, and to the fear and anxiety that so many people are feeling today,” Newsom said. “People across the globe, they look to California and see what’s possible, and how we can live together and advance together and prosper together across every conceivable and imaginable difference.”

The prerecorded address marks the fourth year in a row that Newsom has broken the California tradition of the governor delivering the annual address to lawmakers at the state Capitol.

His GOP foes said the decision to reject the conventional setting again is an example of Newsom’s lack of commitment to the job as he expands his national profile.

“The governor has no respect for this institution,” said Assemblymember James Gallagher (R-Yuba City). “This governor acts like he’s too busy to do things that he’s supposed to do. He’s obviously able to do it in person.”

Newsom’s aides defended the governor, pointing out that the California Constitution only requires him to submit a written letter to the Legislature. Newsom invited lawmakers to a private reception at the governor’s mansion in Sacramento on Monday evening.

Prior governors have used the speech, which has been historically delivered in January, to outline their policy agenda for the year to lawmakers from both houses and political parties in the Assembly chamber. The typical address offers an opportunity to show deference to lawmakers, by appearing in person on their floor, and to gather their support for the work ahead.

But critics of the address call it a tired ritual in an era of one-party rule and say the value of the speech has been usurped by the budget, which has become the governor’s main avenue to drive policy change.

Newsom proposes bond measure, sweeping mental health reform in California

Gov. Gavin Newsom calls for sweeping mental health reforms to generate billions for behavioral health facilities throughout California.

March 19, 2023

Newsom, who dislikes reading off teleprompters because of his dyslexia, has not delivered the State of the State in the Capitol since 2020. Newsom’s address was streamed the following year from an empty Dodger Stadium , a mass COVID-19 vaccination site where the number of seats offered a symbolic representation of the California lives lost in the pandemic at the time.

The governor in 2022 spoke from the headquarters of the California Natural Resources Agency in Sacramento, a 21-story environmentally friendly glass tower blocks from the Capitol, and promised gas rebates to taxpayers. Newsom declined to give a speech last year and instead opted for a statewide press tour, where he sprinkled policy announcements at stops from Sacramento to San Diego .

The governor’s office said Newsom wanted to deliver the speech in the chamber this year and struggled to find a date that worked with the Legislature.

The speech was initially slated for March 13. The address was rescheduled after Newsom’s bond measure to fund mental health services, Proposition 1, remained too close to call for two weeks after the March 5 primary election . His speech was rewritten with a plan to deliver it on March 18 and then delayed again.

Opposition concedes that Newsom likely to eke out a win on Proposition 1 in California

Despite the confidence he projected about Proposition 1, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s ballot measure on California’s mental health services is leading narrowly.

March 15, 2024

Debates over how to solve California’s $46.8-billion budget deficit heated up the following month and continued until last week. Now lawmakers and the governor are staring down an impending deadline to qualify measures on the November ballot and negotiating with interest groups to rescind the initiatives they oppose.

Democratic Sen. Steve Glazer of Orinda was unfazed by Newsom’s nontraditional approach to the speech, saying simply that “we are in changing times,” and he respects the governor’s choice in how he delivers his message.

For one member of an earlier generation of lawmakers, though, Newsom’s video message came off like a snub.

“I hope it’s the last time it ever happens,” said Rusty Areias, who was a Democratic assemblyman in the 1980s and ’90s.

“It’s one of the things that members always look forward to. I understand the governor is very busy. I understand that there are national and international issues that are probably more important, but it is a tradition that in my mind is worth maintaining.”

In his address, Newsom touted his administration’s work to lessen homelessness and crime, two policy areas in which he’s most politically vulnerable.

“When it comes to America’s homeless problem, California’s detractors have similarly offered nothing but rhetoric, moaning and casting blame,” Newsom said. “No state, by the way, has done as much as California in addressing this pernicious problem of homelessness plaguing cities and towns.”

He pushed back on a narrative that California is “defunding the police,” saying the state is recruiting 1,000 California Highway Patrol officers and passing retail theft reforms this year.

In a lighter moment, he described the state as a “weird, wild, free-spirited” creative haven, home to the heavy metal band Metallica and rapper Kendrick Lamar and a place that invented “the popsicle, blue jeans and Barbie.”

Newsom’s speech alluded to the November presidential election, which he referred to as “another extraordinary moment in history — for California, for the country, and for the world.” He compared the moment to an “anxious” time in 1939, when then-California Gov. Culbert Olson in his inaugural address warned about the “the destruction of democracy” as fascism spread throughout Europe.

“We are presented with a choice between a society that embraces our values and a world darkened by division and discrimination,” Newsom said. “The economic prosperity, health, safety and freedom that we enjoy are under assault. Forces are threatening the very foundation of California’s success — our pluralism, our innovative spirit, and our diversity.”

Newsom is expected to travel to Atlanta this week to attend the presidential debate on Thursday as a surrogate for President Biden. The governor, who has built a reputation as a Democrat unafraid of taking the fight to Republicans, was invited by the Biden campaign to participate in media interviews before and after the debate to support the president and the party.

The governor used the speech to attack conservatives nationally over reproductive rights, an issue Democrats have tried to capitalize on in the election.

“When it comes to reproductive rights, their lies are designed to control,” Newsom said. “Their draconian policies are driving women to flee across state lines, as fugitives from laws written by men more than a hundred years ago. Some even go so far as to force victims of assault to give birth to their rapist’s babies.”

Sacramento Bureau Chief Laurel Rosenhall and staff writer Anabel Sosa contributed to this report.

More to Read

Column: Why Newsom might not be cut out for Washington

June 26, 2024

Newsom urges California voters to protect same-sex marriage amid Supreme Court distrust

June 7, 2024

Newsom calls out Republican abortion policies in new ad running in Alabama

April 21, 2024

Start your day right

Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Taryn Luna covers Gov. Gavin Newsom and California politics in Sacramento for the Los Angeles Times.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Column: Trump’s Big Lie isn’t just a national scourge. Local candidates are also fighting for democracy

Column: Are you an armchair diagnostician? Your medical opinions about Biden are useless

Goldberg: How Democrats’ defense of Biden reminds me of Republicans rallying around Trump

Litman: After the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, can Donald Trump still be tried for Jan. 6?

July 1, 2024

Synonyms for Delivered

1 632 other terms for delivered - words and phrases with similar meaning.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Biden’s Truth Was Overshadowed by His Stumbles

By David Firestone

Deputy Editor, the Editorial Board

The president who walked haltingly to the podium as the debate began Thursday night was not State of the Union Joe Biden. There was no sign of the joy and fire that he brought to his speech before Congress in March, which briefly brought life to the hopes of Democrats that Biden had the vitality to run this race.

Instead, his voice was hoarse, he stumbled over facts, and occasionally he seemed to lose his train of thought and became a little incoherent. You could almost hear the whispered gasps of his supporters across the country.

And yet, despite his terrible delivery, Biden was at least telling voters the truth. Donald Trump might have looked more healthy and sounded more energetic, but what came out of his mouth was a mix of word foam and outright lies.

Trump said he never got any credit for getting the country out of the Covid-19 pandemic. Of course he didn’t; his policies and lack of action made the pandemic far worse. He dismissed the huge job gains under Biden as “bounce back” jobs, as if they would have happened automatically, when in fact they were created by Biden’s huge investments and skillful handling of pandemic recovery.

Trump said everyone wanted to end Roe v. Wade, which is nonsense, and stunningly claimed that “the country is now coming together” on abortion, which he said has been a “great thing.”

Biden summoned the strength to call this stuff “foolishness” and “malarkey,” adding that “everything he just said was a lie.” He noted forcefully that the economy was “flat on its back” when he took over from Trump. He reminded the world that Trump was a felon and had encouraged the rioters of Jan. 6.

But the substance (or lack of it) of what the two men said at the beginning of the debate was heavily overshadowed by the way they said it. Biden did nothing to change the minds of those voters who feel he is no longer up to the job, and his performance on Thursday night may mean that many Americans won’t pay attention to whether his thoughts and his actions were the right ones.