It’s been kind of difficult for me to blog consistently. I often find that I’ll start writing a blog then never finalize it. I’ll get it 90% of the way there; then become uncertain with the idea was trying to convey and never post it. I’m pretty slow writer and I think I would prefer to make one class response post a week, covering the whole week, and have the rest be about current events and cool stuff from the interweb. In fact I think that’s what I’ll do.
So here is a video on why you should always remain silent when dealing with the police (providing you are in a dire situation). I think law would be very interesting, but at the same time very frustrating to study.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Evan, Thanks for this comment. Now that you've posted the link, I'd love to have you write a bit more about why you posted it. Can you make a connection to our class discussions? If silence is the recommended response, what happened to freedom of speech? Or, is this something that Amy Tan's essay, from early in the semester, might help us understand? DeAne
ReplyDeleteor maybe i should just suck it up and blog more. . .
ReplyDeleteSorry, I guess I got carried away. But now that you mention Amy Tan. . .
ReplyDeleteI posted this video because I thought it highlighted why you should always assume that you have positive freedom, but not that the law grants you negative liberty.
The definitions of freedoms most American’s are familiar with are deceptively broad. Many Americas don’t understand to what extent the complexities of the law can harm them. To quote Amy Tan “It was your basic instance of Americans with good intention but a certain amount of ineptitude.” Just because someone values of the law, doesn’t mean the law will automatically work his or her favor. While the law is meant to protect the individual, it is up to the individual to understand and apply their rights (positive freedom).
Something else this video makes me think about is accountability v. freedom of speech. To what degree should we be held accountable for what we say or how others interpret what we say? When does accountability/interpretation interfere with freedom of speech? I’m not sure so please comment with your opinion!