Select a developing (emerging) country and explain how the country deals with the concept of chronemics. Justify your response and describe your findings with examples. Bring in at least one high-quality source to augment your discussion (peer-reviewed high-quality references are found in the online library). Remember to bring in information from the Bluen background reading.
The First Amendment to the Constitution grants the five most fundamental freedoms for every citizen. Among them, Americans treasure the right to free speech above all others. There’s a reason why freedom of speech is a principle human right. Free speech acts as the core of all liberties. It reinforces all other human rights, allowing society to develop and progress. Yet a growing intolerance from the left side of the political spectrum is threatening Americans’ ability to freely express beliefs without fear of retaliation. The ability to express our opinion and speak freely is essential to bring about change in society. A free society depends on the free exchange of ideas. Nearly all ideas are capable of giving offence to someone. Thus, when it comes to hate speech, free speech must apply to all and the First Amendment should continue to protect hate speech under any circumstances. Free speech — genuine free speech that tolerates the ideas we find most offensive such as hate speech — must apply equally. Although Americans cherish the right to free speech, this right has become endangered. This debate over hate speech has been a controversial topic for decades but the Unite the Right rally, also known as the Charlottesville white nationalist rally, has re-invigorated the debate. Due to this event, many people have called to legally prohibit hate speech. Thus, people such as white supremacists, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, Klansmen, and neo-Nazis will no longer have a platform to freely express their thoughts. Although this idea might seem pleasing, this legal ban on hate speech will actually do more harm than good. A legal ban on hate speech not only ruins our country’s need for deliberative democracy, the process will face complications due to the fact that a legal definition of hate speech does not exist and also risk the chances of freedom of speech being impaired as a whole. Although I do not agree with any of these individuals’ ideology, I am writing primarily to argue to the United States House of >GET ANSWER