From: jyu@sleepy.mti.sgi.com (James Yu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan,soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Oct. 1 or Oct. 10, which is the more important day for China?
Date: 17 Oct 92 01:12:05 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: sleepy.mti.sgi.com

In article <1992Oct16.182556.9221@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>,
philliao@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Hsin-Chao Phil Liao) writes:
|> In article <1blb0cINNchj@fido.asd.sgi.com> jyu@sleepy.mti.sgi.com
|> (James Yu) writes:
|> >I think you are a little confused.  Freedom of speech means you
|> have
|> >the freedom to express your opinions verbally, written, or in
|> whatever
|> >other forms.  I guess having the right to communicate in whatever
|> >language one chooses might also be protected by the same clause.
|> >
|> >However, having an official language does not in anyway violate
|> this
|> >clause - i.e. one can still express his/her opinion and if it
|> happens
|> >to be another language it is still permitted without fears of being
|> >thrown in jail.  Of course, during the McCarthy era, things were
|> >slightly
|> >different.
|> >
|> >Look, Canada has both English and French as its "official"
|> language.
|> >And yet, do you think people who speak other languages are thrown
|> into
|> >jail?  I'm pretty sure they have similar protections in their
|> >constitution.
|> >
|> >Regardless of whether there is an official language or not, not
|> >speaking
|> >in the official language does NOT equate to committing a crime. 
|> Got
|> >it?
|> 
|> Of course you are right!  But then what is the use of an "official
|> language?"  For people to communicate?  They can choose any language
|> they want.  A language in which official governmental documents are 
|> written?  Well, the government are the people.  And again, you can't
|> assign any one language for the people in this country.  So we have
|> concluded that either 1) there is no need of an official language in
|> the USA or 2) that having an official language implies that it is
|> illegal 
|> to use another language which really violates the constitution.
|> 

I really hate to belabor the point, but your view on the definition of
an "official language" is very restrictive.  You see it as an
imposition
that only that language can be used.  Regardless of the protection from
the constitution, I beg to differ.

If what you say is true, then a country with an "official language"
will
not teach foreigh language in its schools.  It will probably not let
foreigners in unless they can speak the official language (otherwise,
they'll use their native language, which as you indicated is illegal).

That's simply not the case because an official language(s) is/are
something 
that a government:
1) promotes by teaching it as the primary language in its schools, 
2) uses for all its official functions,
3) and most important of all, allows everyone who use the official
language(s)
   to have equal access to the government.

If you go to a governmental agency here in the U.S. and you request
them to do something in Chinese.  Well, first no one will understand
you.
But more importantly, the U.S. governement doesn't have to support a
form written and signed in Chinese.  It is your responsibility to get
a translator.  

Here in California, the DMV issues the driver's handbook in Spainish
and
Chinese.  But that's only because there's a large population of both
groups
here and it behooves the DMV to make life easier for themselves to do
so.
However, if you go to some other state and they don't have the driver's
handbook in the language you prefer.  Are they violating your
constitutional
rights?  No.

The upshot is that the U.S. constitution grants an individual the right
to speak in whatever form, including the language.  However, an
official
language, if it exists, does not take away that right.  It only says
that
the government does not have to support anything else other than the
official language.  These two things are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. 

Lastly, this discussion does not involve whether there is a NEED for an
official language or not.  That point is irrelevant to this discussion.
And your point #2 - well, you couldn't answer my counterexample of the
Canadian situation and here I have presented more situations and
examples.
In addition, your point #1 does not dichotomously oppose your point #2.
So your last either-or statement is not very persuasive.

Anyway, believe whatever you want to believe.  I've made my points and
spoken my peace.

James Yu

DISCLAIMER: My employer has nothing to do with this posting.