Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Doesn't change the fact that its rude/annoying and could be a security risk. Your hypothetical is less about who is doing it and more about WHAT they are doing, and WHY.
You need to drop the security risk line. Give me a break.
If we locked up all 300 million people in the country indefinitely, we'd have less security risk too, wouldn't we?
Dictators think like that, not free people.
People have rights. Saying Spanish is a security risk is not convincing.
Timothy McVeigh didn't speak Spanish, as far as I know.
How is listening to people in public any different than staring at them?
Person 1: Speaks Spanish in public
Person 2: Eavesdrops
One person doesn't creep me out. The other does.
Eavesdropping refers to clandestine concealment and/or positioning of oneself in order to intercept a private communication, held in private, or a conversation held with the expectation of privacy. It requires the element of secrecy such that the parties to the communication are unaware of the presence of the listener.
It is impossible to eavesdrop in a public space or place. I really wish people would use words correctly. It would make these "great debates" so much less of a chore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unwillingphoenician
You need to drop the security risk line. Give me a break.
If we locked up all 300 million people in the country indefinitely, we'd have less security risk too, wouldn't we?
Dictators think like that, not free people.
People have rights. Saying Spanish is a security risk is not convincing.
Timothy McVeigh didn't speak Spanish, as far as I know.
But this (at least in the original post) is private communication between two citizens. There is no safety risk. Comfort is subjective. What's next? Telling someone they can't say a quite prayer in public because someone else finds it "uncomfortable?" Telling someone they can't put certain bumper stickers on their own car because whatever they are advertising makes them "uncomfortable." Telling someone they need to not use certain English words because they don't know what they mean? You couldn't have a conversation in a restaurant with your friend about something too technical or a hobby with a lot of terminology. Heck, in some cases you might not be able to have political conversation with someone (in today's overly divided political environment). Can you imagine it being against the law to talk to your wife about a political candidate and how you like or dislike him because someone in the table next to you doesn't like the candidate and it makes them "uncomfortable."
It's a slippery slope. I think it's best to leave private citizens alone as long as they aren't hurting or endangering anyone else. Don't make laws limiting speech when it comes to this sort of thing.
Once again, it is no longer a private conversation when it's carried on loudly where everyone else can hear it. Geez, I don't know how many times that has to be explained in here.
Push a law if you want. Write to your representatives and Senators. Good luck to you.
EDIT: And very few stores will chase away customers to make a point about this issue. It's why the car companies, insurance companies, everybody really, advertises in Spanish. They're about attracting customers, not repelling them. Even heard Al Michaels say, "Exactamente" on Sunday Night Football this week, instead of "Exactly." Tell me that wasn't coldly calculated by the marketing department. A few businesses might make a stand, especially if they don't operate in an ethnically diverse area. Here in Phoenix, few businesses will mandate against speaking Spanish.
What market are they trying to reach if not for illegal aliens or those who want to be pandered to in Spanish even though they know English? Most Hispanic-Americans and naturalized citizens know English. Anything for a buck though, right?
What market are they trying to reach if not for illegal aliens or those who want to be pandered to in Spanish even though they know English? Most Hispanic-Americans and naturalized citizens know English. Anything for a buck though, right?
This question is a little bit tough in Hawaii. I heard people speaking Hawaiian, English (pidgin and non-pidgin), Samoan, Tagalog, Ilocano, Japanese and Okinawan dialect, Korean, Mandarin, Cantonese,....etc on the street, so should we force everyone to speak non-pidgin English?
And actually shouldn't everyone speak Hawaiian instead of English on these islands?
What I think is that when there are three people in a conversation with one who doesn't know the foreign language spoken, then the other two should switch back to English as a courtesy to the third party.
Anyway, nobody raises an eyebrow when you speak non-English in Hawaii. And of course it is not a safety concern.
What market are they trying to reach if not for illegal aliens or those who want to be pandered to in Spanish even though they know English? Most Hispanic-Americans and naturalized citizens know English. Anything for a buck though, right?
Agreed, and this bleeds into the larger issue of taxpayers being forced to financially accommodate foreigners that won't learn English, which is a travesty.
With "bilingual" education and other services, which all costs a fortune to provide and adds no value to citizens.
Eavesdropping refers to clandestine concealment and/or positioning of oneself in order to intercept a private communication, held in private, or a conversation held with the expectation of privacy. It requires the element of secrecy such that the parties to the communication are unaware of the presence of the listener.
It is impossible to eavesdrop in a public space or place. I really wish people would use words correctly. It would make these "great debates" so much less of a chore.
What's Tim McVeigh got to do with this?
People expect privacy in public.
Spies are the only people who think people shouldn't have privacy in public.
Spies have a lot in common with criminals who finesse the law. "Says right here I can do it."
You make a case that equates Spanish-speaking with a security risk. Timothy McVeigh is a rebuttal to that.
Look at how confused you are.
1) "The law matters. I have a right to listen to any conversation in Safeway, even when people expect privacy. They're in a public space."
2) "The law doesn't matter. It's common sense and rude not to speak English in public. I won't go by the law here, because it doesn't follow my agenda."
What if those people were American citizens practicing their right to free speech?
If they are American citizens then more than likely are able to speak English so why aren't they speaking it in public? Again, this isn't about rights but respect.
What market are they trying to reach if not for illegal aliens or those who want to be pandered to in Spanish even though they know English? Most Hispanic-Americans and naturalized citizens know English. Anything for a buck though, right?
You use the word pander, but advertisers in Spanish not pandering.
They're capitalists, trying to make money. They have to answer tough questions for shareholders, or lose their jobs.
You're freaked out about nothing. People talk about the price of milk in Spanish, and their health problems. No issue here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
