In this case, where *absolute power is over ones' head, a refusal to support implies dissent as one assumes the penalty for (not)doing so is 'clear'.
However, in the case where the law supports silence, where that same law assumes innocence before guilt... claiming one's fifth ammendment right may avoid the truth as evidence but certainly doesn't do much to establish "a shadow of a doubt"... in this case truly speaking without uttering specific sounds.
Since we were given us such a wunnerful
(turn off the bubble machine) ponder in a choice of "one piece of music"... I offer this for your chewing pleasure...
If you were forced to lose one of the three: sight, hearing, or ability to speak... which would it be? For the sake of discussion let us assume that one could speak clearly without hearing (no need to explain all of what truly is possible in this vein...I am quite aware... unless Dr.Bill has insight that no other may.)
I choose to looze
Hi, AnnaS speech. (Now we'll see who the true "lingua"philes are
)
PS. Not answering this question can only mean one thing.
