In America, we have a specific clause in our Constitution that outlines the right for all Americans to have a freedom of speech.  We've used this law in many ways, from allowing Neo-Nazis to have parades on small town streets, to giving us the right to criticize our government that be when we feel it is wrong.

This idea however, is not true for all countries.  Canada for instance is facing its own landmark lawsuit right now concerning this very "freedom" (not outlined in their Constitution).  In it, the BC Human Rights Commission is reporting a violation of rights on behalf of Muslims in Canada after a popular Canadian magazine published an article that these groups feel could possibly insight hatred toward them.  I find this fascinating.  Hate speech is a very serious issue in Canada and not to be taken lightly, but to many Americans, this whole debacle infringes on our right to free speech.  To read a great article on this entire issue, I recommend the NY Times piece which originally brought these differences to my attention.

However, what I find more interesting is the role that corporations are beginning to play in curbing free speech.  If you've worked for an organization before, you've heard this, the prohibition of "external communication" besides from those in upper echelons.  What does this mean?  Essentially, legal action can be taken against you for discussing things that happen in your work day in a public setting.  Translation: when your facebook status or blog cites an incident from work, you are violating the external communication stipulation. 

I find this idea very dangerous.  It's not that people should use blogs or the internet as a platform to merely rant about their work situations, but where is the line crossed when "external communication" becomes so that one is no longer able to discuss incidents in the workplace with anyone else besides those in the work place?  Where is the freedom to discuss critically in the public sphere violations perceived or real within this setting?  How long until the corporate world trumps the First Amendment and we're all left speechless?

Waiting is both a part of my writing and my life.  I like it sometimes such as at dusk when I sit on the dock by the lake and quietly dip my fingers in the water to amuse the sun fish that try to nip at them.  In a book I'm reading right now, Anne Lamott's Bird by Bird, the author insists that no good writer simply sits down and lets the words simply flow out of him or her as, if God were drinking a double-malt scotch next to them and dictating.  No: good writing takes time, revisions, and waiting.

When I first read that passage on first drafts about three years ago I wrote in the margins "unless you have xanga." Xanga does not get my waiting times too often.  This makes blogging easier than writing sometimes.  After all, it is a difficult to let a phrase, an idea, or a moment out to play and see what it returns with.  Sometimes it could be beautiful, like the second draft and third drafts that made up the conclusion to my Honors thesis, thoughts which then comprised the first academic paper I would ever give. 

However, sometimes it stays away for awhile and sometimes, it never comes back.  I have several uncompleted stories, the most memorable being one begun in fourth grade about a ghost child who couldn't go any further than page eight.  Those ideas apply to life too: the girl or guy you meet who makes you try to tire out God by practicing unceasing prayer for the first time, the uncertainty that arrives with leaving your home and job, the ironic desire to finally just grow up -- however, those are the kinds of moments that need to be let go of the most. 

Tonight at the lake, I lay down next to a nudging piece of grass and watched for awhile before reached in to find a tiny snapping turtle hugging the shore line.  Sometimes, just sometimes, the waiting pays off.