Druskell

Druskell t1_jdrwtl5 wrote

Reply to comment by onlyinyaks in Fun fact: 62% of U.S. states have an official language, but Washington doesn't by so-unobvious

That isn't what I said.

  1. "a language FORCED to be used" meaning disallowing individuals and communities to use what ever language they want. Freedom of speech is saying what you want how you want. You want to protest is in Portugese, or via interpretive dance... go for it.
  2. I was saying I like documents having multiple translations, or at least having access to translated versions of the same document. would not violated freedom of speech.
1

Druskell t1_jdij1lb wrote

Reply to Fun fact: 62% of U.S. states have an official language, but Washington doesn't by so-unobvious

I feel like having an official language (in the sense that it is a language forced to be used) would be a violation of freedom of speech.

Having an official language as a matter of streamlining operations in the offices of government I don't have a problem with. Although once that is declared I feel like it will encourage people to declare the former. (I Know this is a slippery slope argument)

​

I like how most things I see in WA. Documents are either in english, or english and other languages. With more languages available upon request.

7