Many modern journalists perceive freedom of speech as permissiveness in speech expression, forgetting that there is also another freedom - freedom (in Kant's terms) from extra - moral motives (selfishness, socially prestigious claims), however, such freedom is achieved by much greater efforts of the individual and has nothing to do with the speech unrestrainedness of modern journalists. American rhetoricians have long suggested that instead of external censorship, they should rely on internal censorship, on moral prohibitions developed by society, which a journalist should observe consciously and voluntarily. Even the medieval French philosopher Pierre Abelard argued that any person of his own free will can not only sin, but also be virtuous. In his opinion, conscience is the only law that is inherent in all people and acts as a criterion of morality (Dictionary of Ethics/ Edited by I. S. Kon, Moscow, 1983). So, not censorship, not bans, but an ethical principle can and should become a regulator of a journalist's speech behavior in a democratic society, i.e. the freedom of the speaker, as you know, should end where the freedom of the listener begins. In the meantime, our press provides a lot of examples of how" for the sake of a red word " journalists defiantly destroy the moral principles that have been developed in society for centuries. The most obvious violations of ethical norms are in the language game, which has become a favorite stylistic device of modern journalists and advertisers. The language game releases the huge expressive possibilities inherent in the language, and this is why it is so readily used by the media and advertising. The sound and form of the word are played out, meanings are layered, puns, occasional expressions (including graphic ones), contamination, etc.are created. The goal of the language game is to attract attention through jokes, humor, and witticisms. Thus, the language game in the modern linguistics of RAS- page 51 It is consider ... Read more