User talk:Nave Naztar

Legalizationing Speechification By Nave Naztar
"Advancements in modern communication technology and discoveries in biological development often result in generational gaps between antediluvian and adolescent interpretation of historical records. Frequently, age gaps between teachers and students result in misunderstandings. Psychologically, whilst discussing traditionalized moral and ethical dilemmas, individuals often convolute discussions by over explaining relatively intuitive analyses of modern syllogistic arguments. Often, individuals draw false conclusions based on pedagogies established through observation. Legally speaking, jurispruditions complicate modern legal discourse through a pervasive over explanation, and repetition of historically recorded words, which citizens gradually comprehend as ‘the law’.    Furthermore, overuse of traditionalized writing styles (the use of transitional phrases and complex adjectives) unduly forces readers into patterns of thought, which they cannot escape; however, such transitions often produce grammatically accurate phonetic representations of ideas. Still, words remain compilations of symbolic representational images, which people learn to interpret into phonetic sounds (i.e. is pronounced “aye-ee”). In writing, authors often play with etymological construction in order to reach particular audiences. A reader’s brain understands words, which he or she utilizes regularly. Argumentative concepts retain more weight as they span across linguistic, phonetic, and grammatical differences. However, constant repetition conditions readers’ brains to recognize particular phrases due to their prominence. For example, anyone who handles money within the United States sees and/or feels the letters in the historically repetitive phrase, “In God We Trust” and “E Pluribus Unum”. As a result, widely accepted arguments usually retain legitimacy in a variety of audiences because their language retains traditionalized language implicitly recognized over time. On the other hand, cunning linguists cleverly comprehend oral satisfaction, which satiates superior tastes with the utterance of undulating lyrical lexis. Legally speaking, the perceived authority behind these judicious words relates to an emergently evanescent theoretical framework established through empirical study and observation of legal history. An amassed aggregate of knowledge within competing nation-states exists most prominently within educational institutions. As a result, secondary and post-secondary education on historical review, which conceptually categorizes contemporary issues of civil society development into separate sections. For instance, “LJST 30” an Amherst course in Spring 2006 primarily educates students in Western post-colonial history in order to address issues surrounding “Law, Speech, and the Politics of Freedom”. However, class discussion dealt more with pop culture than analysis of freedom of speech! Apparently, an examination of expired European texts translated by modern thinkers equals knowledge when titled, “Law, Speech, and the Politics of Freedom”. However, by analyzing jurisprudence through the lens of Western European and U.S. historical literature, which offers a partial understanding of etymological constructs referring to utterances made by lawyers and justices within the United States, students often ignore important developments in international jurisprudence and social thought. Uniquely, the production and reception of speech within the college classroom retains a certain one-dimensionality given the diversification of college admissions. In order to create a substantial marketplace of ideas, colleges accept international, bilingual, multiethnic, and multi-regional applicants; yet, the acceptance of students often results in confusion due to motivations that guide legal discourse. For example, the recent bill H.R. 4437 or the, “Border Protection, Anti-Terorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005” focuses on deporting illegal immigrants with fraudulent or non-existent documentation, as well as building a 700 mile long fence across the border of Mexican-American border. It seems the modern institutional paradigm around diversity of expression lies in legal bureacritization, which becomes complexified with an ever-lengthening history of legal statutes addressing national identity. For example, historical traces of anti-communist rhetoric influenced Florida’s immigration policies toward granting Cuban immigrants amnesty, rather than immigrants of other nationalities. All too often one’s national identity directly relates to one’s legal access to positive rights like healthcare, education, and political representation. As nation state, the U.S. the judicial system explicitly prevents non-citizens from holding public office, serving jury duty, voting, or receiving any other citizenship rights because of their undocumented status. However, international documentation systems represent identities by nation-state, rather than by cultural or communal definitions. International courts designed to respond to variety of different backgrounds, ethnicities, races, and cultures, etc. In fact, the international criminal court’s website adopts a similar sentiment by recruiting individuals who subscribe to national state parties, “but nationals from non-state parties may also be considered” (International 1). Additionally the emergence of Non-governmental organizations abroad significantly influences social development without ascribing to nationalist political identities. More importantly, developments in international policy substantially expand rights of persons by guaranteeing that, “Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law” (GA 217 III 8). International law and cross-cultural institutional support of human rights grant rights without discrimination On the other hand, public and private education within the United States lacks necessary explanations of functional contemporary democratic representation, especially when considering one’s national political identity and how it relates to the production/reception of speech. For example, without knowledge on subjects of international policy and human rights, children learn to comprehend jurisprudence only as it relates to national citizenship. Fundamentally, collegiate legal education within the U.S. ignores international/cross-cultural comparisons concerning democratic developments, and subsequently produces mimicry of nationalist sentiments. Still, human innovation produces miraculous developments in expression, which often help to generate international networks for establishing common trends in understanding justice. The Internet in particular grants individuals ability to connect to international networks, and establish solidarity in diplomatic relations. However, businesses responsible for international networking often opt help to repress and produce the expression of speech based on demands of national law. For example, China’s Baudupedia was recently censored by the Chinese government and with the help of Google, China was able to block search engines, which contain historical accounts of the Tian Men Square atrocities, and human rights in general. “Yahoo came under fire last year for supplying information to China's Government that led to the arrest of journalist Shi Tao, who was jailed for 10 years for passing on a government censorship order through his Yahoo email account” (China 1). As technological development renews capacities for free public expression, the arousal of prurient interests often proves detrimental to self-expression. In this sense, a critical understanding of classic literary, philosophical, psychological, and legal materials fundamentally ignores the developing international framework surrounding modern political discussion. As people focus on historical records and accounts of legal and social thought, they lose touch with important developments in contemporary First Ammendment issues. For example, even Freud stopped his studies due to, “harrowing events on the world stage,” with the start of World War I (Gay xvii). Legal understandings of clear and present danger encourage individuals to censor their own intellect so as to avoid potential conflict; yet, all too often the silencing of harmful or obscene speech holds underlying political motives, with dangerous implications. Self-censorship surrounds political rhetoric and discourages attempts to modernize national policies surrounding free expression. In particular, corporate contributions to political representatives typically result in corrupt campaign legal campaigns, which manipulate international law and produce/repress speech on human rights. Legalese within nation-states, and among U.S. puppet democracies typically embodies the values of economic elites within the U.S. In, 1997 Mathieu Kerekou was elected President of Benin after Titan Communications in California illegally donated millions toward his campaign (Hofer online). Corporations within the U.S. and Europe hold a monopoly on interpretation of political freedoms abroad. Still, Information Industry head Xi Guohua, “told participants at a conference in the capital Beijing commemorating the 38th World Telecommunications Day that China was increasing its supervision capabilities over Internet security concerns by further developing and adapting new technology” (China Concerned 1). Clearly, modern political freedom of expression exists insofar as such speech does not contradict traditionalized practices embedded in national law and corporate interests. Historically, government censorship of the arts occurs because of institutionalized rhetoric against second class and non-citizens. Artists like Paul Cadmus, Andy Warhol, and more recently Robert Maplethorpe all lose government funds because society gave them unique political identities. Furthermore, the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy requires that one prolong homosexual anonymity during military service, in order to serve the nation-state. Arguably, the U.S. policy of funding public ignorance toward homosexuality remains a poor match for the massive expenditure toward military campaigns against human rights abroad. Money dedicated toward developing prisons and technological warfare results in less money toward public education and discriminates even further against non-citizens. Legally, the first amendment protects individual right to free expression; fiscally, speech remains a right reserved to particular groups Moreover, the emergence of multifaceted views on jurisprudence and social thought fail to reach elite intellectual institutions because modern discourse surrounds the study of white European and American law, rather than the ethnically, culturally, and sexually diverse interpretations of the constitution. For example, not once during LJST 30, was international law cited in discussions relating to the First Amendment! Furthermore, assigned readings avoided addressing the rights of non-citizens, in relation to the First Amendment. In 2005, Ward Churchill the Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado lost his job and his audience because he attempted to explain the terrorists’ intentions behind the attacking the World Trade Center. U.S. history is riddled with governmental policies, which limit groups to discussing individual rights and international policy. As early as 1789, the Alien and Sedition Acts targeted the press and attempted to silence the press from speaking out against the government. Likewise, Thomas Nast’s animalistic depictions of American bipartisanship angered many politicians, but ultimately landed him a place in the history books. Government repression/censorship silences international outcry against national and international laws established by affluent corporate entities. Despite modernization, technology disallows for free communication between groups with different sexual, racial, socio-economic, and age-related categories. Most of the world does not have access to a computer, much less the Internet. More importantly, Internet communication allows for the tracing of IP addresses, email, business records, and computer serial information. Furthermore, the Patriot Act, the forfeiture acts each grant legitimacy for federal seizure of all property for individuals who are suspected of falsely documenting their citizenship (HR 4437 Sec. 213. 75. 1549. A). Additionally, U.S. and European military forces repress international criticism of democratization and international justice through violent repression of foreign news networks. Westernized conceptualizations of representative governance and free expression fundamentally ignore the twisted irony of destroying popular media in the Middle East. Modern educational institutions mostly ignore strategic genocide of individuals who refuse to ascribe to traditional labels of national citizenship based identity. Even worse, educational elites often ignore the emergence of effective youth activism because they allegedly lack the psychological ability to understand issues like jurisprudence and social thought. The role of the professor remains dubiously authoritarian and wholly undemocratic. Youth retain very few (if any) First Amendment rights in public schools because their age renders them non-citizens. However, this has not stopped the incarceration and execution of hundreds of minors within the United States. Even with foreign outcry against capital punishment for minors and developmentally disabled, the “Acknowledgment of foreign approval has no place in the legal opinion of this court” (Scalia 23). Although dissenting opinions exist to discourage the legal discrimination, international ignorance, and the poor state of collegiate education, most complaints fall on deaf ears. Perhaps the gap between geriatric logic and youth activism retains real literary and experiential merit, or perhaps the discussions within elite institutional framework merely furthers economic exploitation of youthful intellect through hegemonic indoctrination of Western values. This is a speech act that will be submitted on Internet blogs, newspapers, and billboards. It will have one guaranteed perlocutionary effect: it will receive a failing grade. It goes exactly ONE word over the requested limit, uses superfluous vocabulary, directly insults its audience, and ignores all of the required topics."

P.S. Stanley Fish Bombed Iran