The lure of the open road is a favorite theme in U.S. popular culture. Immortalized in literature, music and film, the so-called Great American Road Trip is a rite of passage for youth seeking adventure and is also a popular vacation choice for families.

Traversing the United States by car is an invitation to enhance — or ditch — the standard tourist agenda and seek out some of the country’s most treasured oddities: quirky local attractions that offer a glimpse at America’s lighter side. Every state boasts its own prized peculiarities. Here are descriptions of just a few.

Great Balls of Twine

No fewer than four contenders vie for the title of the “World’s Largest Ball of Twine,” an object that delights visitors with its utter pointlessness.

The oldest contender — located in Darwin, Minnesota — is billed as the largest such object ever constructed by a single person. Francis A. Johnson began wrapping twine into a ball in the early 1950s and continued until his death in 1989. Measuring 12 meters in circumference and weighing 7,900 kilograms, Johnson’s ball of twine has become a source of civic pride. Townspeople celebrate “Twine Ball Day” every August.

Frank Stoeber, of Cawker City, Kansas, regarded Johnson’s ball as a challenge and decided to start his own. He died in 1974 before surpassing Johnson’s record. But the townspeople of Cawker City have adopted Stoeber’s challenge as their own: Every August they hold a “Twine-a-thon” in which all are invited to add more twine to the ball. It now ranks as the world’s largest and heaviest ball of sisal twine, currently weighing almost 8,165 kilograms and measuring 12 meters in circumference.

The third contender — in Lake Nebagamon, Wisconsin — is the project of James Frank Kotera, who started wrapping his twine ball in 1979. He continues to work on it, and by his estimation, the ball weighs 8,700 kilograms, making it the heaviest ball of twine ever built. Kotera’s ball sits in an open-air enclosure on its creator’s front lawn; it has a smaller companion, “Junior,” made of string.

Not to be outdone, the town of Branson, Missouri, boasts its own ball of twine, allegedly certified by the Guinness Book of World Records as the “world’s largest” (although this distinction might be fleeting, since the Kansas and Wisconsin balls are still works in progress). Owned by the Ripley’s Believe It or Not museum, the Missouri ball measures 12.6 meters in circumference.

Car Culture

Americans’ love of the open road and automobiles is expressed in a number of car-themed attractions. Two of the best known are Cadillac Ranch in Amarillo, Texas, and Carhenge near Alliance, Nebraska.

Cadillac Ranch — conceived in 1974 as a tribute to America’s most famous luxury automobile — is a tongue-in-cheek art installation of vintage Cadillacs in a row with their front ends buried in the ground. The cars’ back ends, with tail fins pointing to the sky, form a permanent salute to America’s automotive heritage. Visitors are encouraged to bring cans of spray paint to decorate the “sculptures.”

Carhenge (ca. 1987) is a sly replica of England’s Stonehenge (ca. 2400–2200 BCE), but in place of the stones that define the English prototype, its modern-day twin is constructed of 38 vintage American cars arranged in a circle. The cars have been spray-painted a uniform gray, mimicking the color of natural stone, and the entire structure sits in the middle of a grassy plain.

For tourists who prefer to stay in their cars, Dickinson, North Dakota’s Enchanted Highway offers artwork along the drive. Billed as the world’s largest collection of scrap-metal sculptures, the Enchanted Highway includes eight giant sculptures — from The Tin Family to Spider Webs — stretched across more than 50 kilometers of open road.

Curious Critters and More

Popular landmarks across the United States often include giant statues representing real or imaginary figures. In Seattle, the ugly but much-loved Fremont Troll lurks beneath the Aurora Bridge, gripping a real Volkswagen Beetle car in one enormous hand. In Klamath, California, the Trees of Mystery site features unusual tree formations, and its entrance is guarded by statues of the mythical American lumberjack Paul Bunyan, who stands nearly 15 meters high, and Bunyan’s sidekick, Babe the Blue Ox. Bunyan’s mechanical right hand offers a sluggish wave and his “voice” (courtesy of a loudspeaker in his breast pocket) cheerfully greets visitors and answers their questions.

Dinosaur theme parks can be found coast to coast, but Dinosaur Land in White Post, Virginia, is a particular favorite of children. Huge fiberglass replicas of prehistoric beasts, some locked in mortal combat, populate the forested grounds. Not all the creatures are dinosaurs, however; a towering cobra, an outsized praying mantis, a shark and a model of Hollywood star King Kong are part of the mix. The park’s loopy “dawn of time” effect is heightened by a caveman diorama, located indoors.

An architectural folly known as the Haines Shoe House, located in Hellam, Pennsylvania, is a classic of roadside Americana. A 7.6-meter edifice that looks like a gigantic work boot, the house was built in 1948 as an advertising gimmick by Mahlon N. Haines, who owned shoe stores in Maryland and Pennsylvania. The three-bedroom Shoe House features stained-glass windows with a shoe motif. Haines initially used the house as guest quarters for the elderly couples and newlyweds whom he invited for weekend visits; as part of this promotional stunt, he gave free pairs of shoes to his guests. Today, the Haines Shoe House is a museum; a shoe-shaped doghouse sits in the back yard.

These roadside attractions offer great photo opportunities and serve as a reminder to plan for some wonderfully weird detours when embarking on Road Trip USA.

Download this article as a .pdf

On Sunday, May 5, 2013,  U.S. Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman completed his Partnership tour of all 589 cities in Belgium by visiting the commune of Voeren.

On the same day, Ambassador Gutman also welcomed the governors and mayors of Belgium to his residence for a reception to celebrate Ambassador Gutman’s unique accomplishment.  Guest of honor was Belgian Prime Minister Elio Di Rupo.

Belgian TV, radio and print outlets covered the end of the Ambassador’s Partnership Tour which has strengthened the friendship between the U.S. and Belgium over the past couple of years.

Read Ambassador Gutman’s Speech “A Tour That Never Really Ends.”

More photos of the event can be found on our Flickr photo stream.

Watch videos on our Ning site.

Most major American cities have a “Chinatown,” easily identified by Chinese-language shop and street signs, Chinese restaurants and merchants selling Chinese goods. The neighborhoods have long histories and are popular tourist destinations, but like many sections of urban America, they face the challenge of development and rising property costs as they try to maintain their tradition as ethnic residential areas.

New immigrants to the United States have often tried to settle among those coming from the same country, making their transition easier by having immediate access to community support networks for jobs, housing and worship, and living in a neighborhood where fluent English skills are not a necessity

Like the Chinese, who began immigrating to the United States in the mid-19th century, other groups established neighborhoods like “Little Italy,” “Irishtown” and “Little Havana” as areas to live, work and socialize. But while many urban U.S. neighborhoods are still named for a predominant ethnic group and retain some of their character, economic conditions and assimilation have often dramatically changed the residential makeup. Are America’s Chinatowns facing a similar risk?

In both San Francisco, which hosts the oldest American Chinatown, and New York, which is home to the largest, Chinese immigrants and Chinese Americans are increasingly found in the suburbs instead of the urban centers. Many affluent and better educated immigrants have typically moved directly to suburbia. But Chinatowns have traditionally served as attractive destinations for lower-skilled workers lacking English-language skills.

Part of the broader trend toward suburbia can be blamed upon the urban renewal process known as “gentrification,” in which aging buildings and homes are renovated or replaced by new, higher-priced living spaces, raising nearby property values and forcing many long-time residents and lower-income families to find a cheaper place to live.

Employment is another factor. During much of the 20th century, the U.S. Chinatown economy relied heavily upon garment factories, laundry services and restaurants that supplied jobs within the neighborhood. Ironically, competition from Chinese imports has forced many garment factories to close, and with fewer nearby job prospects, many residents have also opted to move to suburban neighborhoods.

A third reason is the reduced number of Chinese immigrants. China’s rapid economic expansion has led to higher wages and better job opportunities back home, making overseas emigration less appealing, and thereby limiting the repopulation of Chinatowns as assimilated residents decide to leave.

In fact, New York’s Chinatown, which grew large enough to expand into areas of Little Italy, is now home to many other immigrants from Asian countries, as well as newcomers from the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico. The effects of gentrification have likewise attracted many young urban professionals to the area.

To showcase the changes in its local Chinatown, Boston.com published a photo gallery to compare the neighborhood with the way it looked in 1987. The photos show how an old theater has been converted into an upscale apartment building, coffee shops have replaced adult video stores and mainstream chain stores have moved into the neighborhood.

CHINATOWN STILL AN ENTRY POINT FOR IMMIGRANTS

Despite its changed character, Chinatown remains the cultural and economic center for new Chinese immigrants in Boston, according to Tunney Lee, a professor who has studied the neighborhood’s history. “It’s the most flourishing ethnic neighborhood in the city,” Lee told Boston.com.

Many of today’s Chinatowns still provide an instant community to Chinese newcomers. In New York, the infrastructure set up by Chinese groups such as the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association and other organizations is increasingly being tapped by immigrants from places like Eritrea, Iran and Mexico, according to a February 22, 2011, article that appeared in the New York Times.

“It’s an entry point,” anthropologist Kenneth J. Guest told the Times. “The Chinatown infrastructure, which has been set up to be part of a whole migration industry for Chinese coming into the country, has begun to be accessed by other immigrant groups looking for a way into the low-wage labor market.”

Not all urban U.S. Chinatowns are facing the same level of economic pressure from rising property values. In Chicago, for example, the population has increased by more than 24 percent — to 7,254 — in the last decade, according to a January 17, 2012, article published by Northwestern University’s Medill Reports.

Theresa Mah, a policy consultant with the Coalition for a Better Chinese American Community, told Medill Reports that many of the newer housing options, as well as adjacent areas, remain affordable and are attracting new immigrants. Their presence will boost demand for English-language classes, bilingual social services and education, she said.

“New immigrants continue to see this area as a port of entry,” Mah said, “because it is close to jobs that they can get without English skills, social services through the long-established agencies in the community, and good public transportation that serves the area.”

Hopefully, many more American Chinatowns will be able to retain not only their character, but also the residents that have helped to set the neighborhoods apart from the surrounding city. Chinatown represents more than just a haven for tourists looking for interesting areas to explore, but also how American immigrants have been able to make a place for themselves and create a unique mixture of old and new traditions within the most populous U.S. cities.

Celebration of Mexican heritage is widely observed in United States

When the Cinco de Mayo (“fifth of May”) holiday is observed in the United States, the annual festivity honors the Mexican heritage of a growing number of U.S. citizens, with a focus on Mexico’s distinctive cuisine, folk dances, colorful costumes and mariachi music.

What many celebrants might not realize is that the holiday has evolved significantly over the years, often bearing little trace of its origins. Cinco de Mayo is not, as some believe, Mexico’s Independence Day, which is September 16. The holiday commemorates the victory of outnumbered and largely indigenous Mexican forces over the French army at the Battle of Puebla in 1862, following a tumultuous period in Mexico’s history.

A MEXICAN-AMERICAN INTERPRETATION

According to historians, Cinco de Mayo not only recalls an underdog victory for Mexico, but also represents the triumph of indigenous people over foreign conquistadors. As such, the date might have more complex significance for Mexicans than for their Mexican-American counterparts, whose absorption into their new homeland has become part of the immigrant narrative of the United States. But if the meaning of Cinco de Mayo has evolved for Mexican Americans, it is no less an expression of pride in the traditions of their Mexican forebears.

As U.S. demographic shifts begin to reflect a growing Latino presence — with greater political and economic clout than ever before — Americans have become increasingly familiar with many Latin cultural imports, particularly Latin music and food. These imports have been embraced by the U.S. mainstream to such a degree that some remarkably successful hybrids — such as Tex-Mex cuisine — have emerged. The popularity of Latin traditions in general, and Mexican ones in particular, have helped to transform Cinco de Mayo festivities in the United States into a celebration of all things Mexican.

Today, communities across the United States observe Cinco de Mayo, from small border towns in Texas and Arizona to metropolitan hubs like New York, Los Angeles, Cleveland and Atlanta. The holiday, now virtually ignored in Mexico, has become a vibrant annual event in many U.S. cities, with a strong focus on Mexican food and music, and traditional costumes in red, white and green, the colors of the Mexican flag. Typical Mexican fare — salsa, guacamole, empanadas, enchiladas, tamales, burritos, fajitas — tops the menu at these festivities.

To many celebrants, Cinco de Mayo is also a warm expression of friendship between the neighboring countries of Mexico and the United States. In Los Angeles, for instance, Mexican dignitaries are invariably guests of honor, and the mayor of Los Angeles addresses the crowd in Spanish.

In Washington, President Bush issued his annual Cinco de Mayo greetings on May 2, noting that the holiday marks “a joyful day in Mexican history and an important milestone in the history of freedom.” The president added: “This holiday is also an opportunity to recognize the strong ties of family, economy, and culture that bind the United States and Mexico. Through a shared commitment to economic liberty and the universal right of freedom, the United States and Mexico continue to build a future of prosperity and opportunity for all people.”

THE HOLIDAY AS IMMIGRANT SUCCESS STORY

As Mexican influence continues to be felt throughout U.S. society, Cinco de Mayo celebrations are likely to spread even further, just as the holidays of other immigrant groups have been adopted by Americans: for example, St.Patrick’s Day, long honored in Ireland, is now observed almost everywhere in the United States.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were an estimated 30.7 million U.S. residents of Mexican origin in 2008, and that number is expected to grow. People of Mexican origin living either in California (11.26 million) or Texas (7.78 million) make up nearly one-third of the residents of those two states, and U.S. trade with Mexico was valued at $347.3 billion in 2007. Mexico ranks as the United States’ third-leading trading partner, after Canada and China.

With prominent Mexican Americans now serving in the U.S. Congress and in other positions of authority, this fast-growing demographic group likely will continue making significant contributions to the United States — in policy circles, in the professions and in popular culture. In the United States, the success of Cinco de Mayo is another manifestation of the vitality of a large and restless country that was built by the hard work, talent and imagination of its immigrants, from the time of its founding in 1776 to the present day.

By Lauren Monsen

A unique vision of Earth rising above the Moon was captured during an Apollo 8 Mission. (NASA Photo)

Earth Day, April 22, is the annual U.S. celebration of the environment and a time for Americans to assess the work still needed to protect the natural gifts of our planet. Earth Day has no central organizing force behind it, though several nongovernmental organizations work to keep track of the thousands of local events in schools and parks that mark the day. It affirms that environmental awareness is part of the country’s consciousness and that the idea of protecting the environment — once the province of a few conservationists — has moved from the extreme to the mainstream of American thought.

This was not always the case. In the 19th century, Americans, blessed with a vast land rich in natural resources, lived with the notion that fresh fields were always just over the horizon. When one exhausted the soil or forests or coal of a given place, it was possible to move on to another. As industry boomed in the early 20th century people accepted without question skies blackened from smokestack emissions and rivers fouled with industrial waste. As early as the mid-1930s — and again in the 1950s — Ohio’s Cuyahoga River, running through America’s industrial heartland, was set ablaze by burning chemical waste from factories built upon its banks. There was no public outcry. Few people even noticed.

During the 1960s public attitudes began to change. In 1962 a marine biologist named Rachel Carson published Silent Spring. The title referred to a future without birds and described in plain language devastating long-term effects of highly toxic pesticides and other chemical agents then commonly used in American agriculture, industry and daily life. The book was a surprise bestseller.
In 1968 Apollo astronauts, returning from their pioneering orbital flight around the moon, photographed the planet Earth as a whole for the first time. This image of the Earth — small, fragile, beautiful, and unique — quickly was imprinted on the psyches of millions. In 1969 industrial runoff in the Cuyahoga River again caught fire. This time the public reaction was immediate and intense. Cleveland, where the fire occurred, became a national laughing-stock, and the satirical song “Burn On, Big River, Burn On” was heard on radios across the country. In that same year the U.S. Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), establishing a “national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment.”

Concurrent with this slow building of environmental awareness was the increasingly vocal opposition to U.S. involvement in the war in Vietnam. Public demonstrations against the war — particularly on college campuses — gave impetus to the idea that organized challenges to the “status quo” could in fact change public policy and behavior.

ORIGIN OF EARTH DAY

Gaylord Nelson, a U.S. senator from Wisconsin and a longtime conservationist, was one who understood that the methods developed for use in the anti-war protest could succeed in other areas as well. “At the time,” Nelson later wrote, “there was a great deal of turmoil on the college campuses over the Vietnam War. Protests, called anti-war teach-ins, were being widely held on campuses across the nation … It suddenly occurred to me, why not have a nationwide teach-in on the environment? That was the origin of Earth Day.”

Nelson returned to Washington and began promoting Earth Day to state governors, mayors of big cities, editors of college newspapers and, importantly, to Scholastic Magazine, which is circulated in U.S. elementary and secondary schools. In September 1969, Nelson formally announced that there would be a “national environmental teach-in” sometime in spring 1970. “The wire services carried the story nationwide,” recalled Nelson. “The response was dramatic …. Telegrams, letters, and telephone inquiries poured in from all over the nation. Using my Senate staff, I ran Earth Day activities out of my office. By December, the movement had expanded so rapidly that it became necessary to open an office in Washington to serve as a national clearinghouse for Earth Day inquiries and activities ….

“Earth Day achieved what I had hoped for. The objective was to get a nationwide demonstration of concern for the environment so large that it would shake the political arena. It was a gamble, but it worked. An estimated 20 million people participated in peaceful demonstrations all across the country. Ten thousand grade schools and high schools, two thousand colleges, and one thousand communities were involved …. That was the remarkable thing that became Earth Day.”

Groundbreaking federal legislation followed the success of the first Earth Day. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was established in 1970, followed by the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act of 1972, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Among the many far-reaching provisions of these bills was the requirement that automobiles use unleaded gasoline, achieve a minimum number of miles-per-gallon of gasoline and be equipped with catalytic converters to reduce the amount of toxic fumes released by automobile exhaust.

Then, in the wake of this legislative success, Earth Day seemed to disappear. Though annual celebrations continued, they failed to match the size and enthusiasm of the first year. Earth Day seemed to have become a relic of the protest days of the early 1970s.

Yet the spirit of Earth Day continued. Environmental organizations grew in size and power. Groups such as Greenpeace, formed in Canada in 1971, adopted principles of nonviolent civil disobedience to raise public consciousness about dwindling whale populations and the risks of nuclear power. The Nature Conservancy, formed in 1951, rededicated itself in the early 1970s to the “preservation of natural diversity” and began to buy undeveloped land for use as nature preserves. Venerable institutions such as the Sierra Club and the National Audubon Society vigorously brought suits against logging companies to slow the destruction of old-growth forests. Funded by public contributions and staffed with lawyers and educators as well as scientists and naturalists, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) became aggressive watchdogs for the environment.

At home, Americans, often prompted by their children, began to separate their household trash for recycling. By the late 1980s recycling programs were established in many communities. By the mid-1990s these municipal recycling programs were paying for themselves, the amount of trash dumped into landfills was in noticeable decline, and more than 20 percent of America’s municipal trash was being converted into useful products. Corporations, ever conscious of the desires of the consumer — and the bottom line of profits — began to promote themselves as being environmentally friendly. Many firms adopted sensible business practices that increased efficiency and reduced the amounts of industrial waste.

RESURGENCE IN 1990S

Earth Day came back in a big way in 1990. Led by Dennis Hayes, a primary organizer of the first Earth Day, Earth Day 1990 was international in scope. More than 200 million people around the world — 10 times the number in 1970 — participated in events that recognized that the environment had finally become a universal public concern. The global momentum continued in 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janiero, Brazil, where an unprecedented number of governments and NGOs agreed on a far-ranging program to promote sustainable development.

The 25th anniversary of the first Earth Day in 1995 was a time to assess environmental progress. In Western countries the news seemed good — air and water were cleaner, forests were expanding and many other environmental indicators were up as well. The sometimes volatile combination of legislation, lawsuits brought by NGOs, public education and more efficient business practices had made a noticeable and positive effect on the condition of the environment.

But there were conflicting views on just how good this news was. Environmental reporter Gregg Easterbrook wrote in The New Yorker magazine that environmental laws “along with a vast array of private efforts spurred by environmental consciousness … have been a stunning success …. Environmental regulations, far from being burdensome and expensive, have proved to be strikingly effective, have cost less than anticipated, and have made the economies of the countries that have put them into effect stronger, not weaker.”

Environment magazine, a leading NGO journal, offered a gloomier assessment: “Earth Day … has neither spawned a permanently active citizenry nor transformed the general malaise that undermines faith in democratic accountability. Although environmentalism has made great strides since 1970, institutionally as well as in public consciousness, environmental security… today remains even more elusive than 25 years ago.”

What began in 1970 as a protest movement has evolved into a global celebration of the environment and commitment to its protection. The history of Earth Day mirrors the growth of environmental awareness over the last few decades, and the legacy of Earth Day is the certain knowledge that the environment is a universal concern.

By Timothy Brown

The United States is a nation of immigrants; only Native Americans can claim North America as their ancestral home. Other Americans or their ancestors came to this land, creating what many call “the melting pot.” These immigrants brought with them the traditions of their homeland — including their agricultural practices, food preferences and cooking methods.

America’s ethnic melting pot has given rise to a cuisine equally varied and diverse. Most of the foods categorized as American are traditional dishes from other lands that have gained popularity across the country.

While there may be no perfect definition of traditional American cooking, dishes such as clam chowder, chili, gumbo, fried chicken, crab cakes, lobster rolls, Buffalo wings, corn on the cob, potato salad, hamburgers, hot dogs and apple pie would be on most lists.

Cuisine in different parts of the United States developed independently. Each region was influenced by the nationality of colonists that settled in the area and by the ingredients locally available. As a result, each region has distinct ingredients, flavors and dishes of its own.

New England

New England, the northeastern part of the country, is renowned for hearty dishes brought to its shores by British colonists and for its cold-water seafood, harvested locally. This is the land of Yankee pot roast, Boston baked beans, New England clam chowder and Maine lobster.

The South

Southeastern states are home to “down-home Southern cooking,” characterized by farm-style cuisine with plenty of fried foods, heavy sauces and sweet desserts. Deep-fried chicken, known as Southern fried chicken, and chicken-fried steak, a deep-fried beef cutlet, are often served with a thick white sauce called home-style gravy.

Southerners also love barbecue, but unlike residents of the Southwest, they prefer mustard- or vinegar-based barbecue sauces. Southern barbecue usually means pork, especially pork ribs, well spiced or marinated and slowly cooked over glowing coals. Collard greens, black-eyed peas and cornbread are common side dishes. Pecan pie, peach cobbler, banana pudding and sweet potato pie are some favorite desserts.

New Orleans

Although located in the Southern state of Louisiana, New Orleans has a distinct culture and cuisine of its own. This city at the mouth of the Mississippi River was settled by Spanish and French colonists who brought slaves from Africa and the Caribbean to the region. Consequently, the city’s Creole and Cajun cuisine is a mixture of Spanish and French cooking, spiced with African and West Indian flavors.

Blackened fish and steaks are grilled with coatings of pepper and hot spices. Jambalaya and gumbo are flavored stews of meats, sausage and seafood. Many Cajun dishes are highly spiced with hot pepper and chili, but not all are fiery. Traditional Spanish and French cooking, along with local variations, are available in many restaurants throughout the city.

The Southwest

Cuisine in the Southwestern states has been influenced by Native Americans, early Spanish settlers and Mexicans. Southwestern cuisine includes a variety of dishes prepared with local ingredients and liberally sprinkled with Mexican spices.

Tex-Mex cuisine is a variant of Southwestern cooking that is most popular in Texas and along the Mexican border. Popular Tex-Mex dishes include barbecue and chili. These cowboy-inspired dishes are so popular in the Southwest and across the United States that many places have annual chili festivals and barbecue cook-offs with prizes for the best recipes. It is also home to salsa, nachos, tacos and burritos.

California

California is blessed with a bountiful supply of fresh fruits, vegetables and seafood in all seasons. Its ethnically diverse population has developed a healthy cuisine that makes use of fresh ingredients flavored with unusual combinations of spices. Green salads topped with avocados and citrus fruits might be served with Asian spiced peanut sauce. Fish may be lightly grilled and served with Chinese vegetables and Native American fry bread. Almost any combination of ethnic food styles can be combined in California cooking.

Download this presentation as a .pdf

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States is a party, both state that individuals have a right to freedom of expression; this right includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds.

The United States safeguards this right through the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The U.S. Constitution protects even the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression, and permits regulation of speech only under certain limited and narrow circumstances. The U.S. system is built on the idea that the free and open exchange of ideas encourages understanding, advances truth-seeking and allows for the rebuttal of falsehoods. The United States believes, and experience has shown, that the best way to counter offensive speech is not with regulation but with more speech.

The Foundation of Free Expression

The U.S. Constitution’s protection of freedom of expression embodies the notion that an individual’s ability to express himself freely — without fear of government punishment — produces the autonomy and liberty that promote better governance. Allowing citizens to openly discuss topics of public concern results in a more transparent and representative government, more tolerant ideas and a more stable society.

History has shown that curtailing free expression by banning speech does not advance democracy. The drafters of the U.S. Constitution recognized that when governments forbid citizens from talking about certain topics, it often forces those citizens to discuss such topics secretly. By allowing individuals to express their opinions — no matter how much the government and other citizens may disagree with them — the First Amendment promotes transparency and social stability. This uninhibited public debate also forces ideas into the intellectual marketplace, where they must compete with the ideas freely expressed by other individuals.[1] This competition of ideas means that inferior or offensive ideas give way to better ones.

Narrowly Drawn Exceptions

While the First Amendment provides very broad protections for expression in the United States, freedom of speech is not absolute. Generally, the government has more discretion to impose content-neutral restrictions than content-based restrictions.

CONTENT-NEUTRAL RESTRICTIONS

The government can generally place time, place and manner restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression, provided that the restrictions are not based on the content of the speech or the viewpoint of the speaker. These restrictions must 1) be content neutral, 2) be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and 3) leave open other channels of communication.[2]

For example, the government may impose reasonable regulations on the volume of loudspeakers used in a downtown business district, impose reasonable limits on protests in residential neighborhoods in the middle of the night, or require permits for parades and organized protests to ensure that they do not create public safety hazards, provided that such restrictions apply to all speakers without regard to the particular content or viewpoint of the speech.

CONTENT-BASED RESTRICTIONS

While content-based restrictions are generally impermissible, there are some narrow exceptions. Special categories of expression that may be restricted under the First Amendment include incitement to imminent violence, true threats, defamatory speech and obscenity.

Incitement to Imminent Violence

An individual’s speech may be restricted if 1) it is intended to incite or produce lawless action, 2) it is likely to incite such action, and 3) such action is likely to occur imminently. This is a very high standard, which courts have rarely found to have been met. General advocacy of violence, such as writing on a website that violent revolution is the only cure to society’s problems, does not constitute incitement to imminent violence.

For example, in 1969, a Ku Klux Klan member delivered a speech in Ohio in which he advocated “revengence” (sic) against Jews and African Americans.[3] The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a statute prohibiting his speech because it criminalized speech that was not “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and was not “likely to incite or produce such action.”[4]

Similarly, if a person burns a U.S. flag at a protest against the U.S. government’s immigration policies, and a counter-protester becomes upset and physically attacks someone who appears to be an immigrant, the flag burner’s expression likely would be protected by the First Amendment because it was not intended to incite violence.

In contrast, if a speaker belonging to a particular ethnic group calls on an angry mob to imminently and specifically physically attack someone of a different ethnic group to prove his group’s superiority, and someone from that mob immediately physically attacks someone from that different ethnic group, the speaker’s speech likely would not be protected by the First Amendment because it was intended to incite imminent violence and was likely to incite such violence.

True Threats

Speech may also be restricted based on its content if it falls within the narrow class of “true threats” of violence. A true threat is a statement that a reasonable recipient would take to mean that the speaker, or people working with the speaker, intend to commit physical harm against the recipient. For example, a Philadelphia woman was sentenced to eight months confinement after she left an anonymous threatening note on her colleague’s chair.

Defamation

In the United States, defamatory speech is a false statement of fact that damages a person’s character, fame or reputation. It must be a false statement of fact; statements of opinion, however insulting they may be, cannot be defamation under U.S. law.

Under U.S. defamation law, there are different standards for public officials and private individuals. Speakers are afforded greater protection when they comment about a public official, as opposed to a private citizen. In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public officials could prove defamation only if they could demonstrate “actual malice,” that is, that the speaker acted with knowledge that the defamatory statement was false or “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”[5]

This decision was later extended to cover “public figures,” in addition to public officials.[6] For the private concerns of private individuals, though, the standard for proving defamation remains lower. [7] Defamation of private individuals can be established if the statements were false and damaged the person’s reputation without showing actual malice. Only individuals, not groups, can be defamed.

Even where courts find defamation, they do not impose criminal punishment. Instead, courts may require the speaker to publish a correction to the defamatory statement and/or to financially compensate the victim.

Obscenity

Obscenity may be restricted under the First Amendment, but there has been a long debate over what constitutes obscenity and how it should be regulated. The U.S. Supreme Court defined obscenity in 1973 as expression that the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find 1) appeals to prurient interests, 2) depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and 3) lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, when taken as a whole.[8]

A court evaluates each element independently and will not classify expression as obscene unless all factors exist. For example, if a book uses coarse language and depicts sexual conduct but, taken as a whole, does not appeal to prurient interests or has literary value, it is not obscene.[9] Given such high standards, it is rare for the courts to find expression obscene.

Hate Speech

Hate speech — generally defined as speech that maligns a person or group based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation or disability — receives full First Amendment protection. Speech that is intended to incite imminent violence or credibly threaten individuals, however, can be restricted as outlined above.

While the United States does not restrict hate speech, it understands that the most effective weapon in combating hate speech is not suppression, but tolerant, truthful and intelligent counter-speech.

Banning intolerant or offensive speech can be counterproductive, raising the profile of the offensive speech and causing hateful ideologies to fester in dangerous, sometimes hidden ways. Persuasion — not regulation — is the solution.

The United States’ strong constitutional protections for and belief in freedom of expression do not mean that it sits idly by as individuals and groups seek to spread toxic expressions of hatred. Rather, the United States deploys an array of policies to reach out to affected communities, provide conflict resolution services, and enhance dialogue.

GOVERNMENT VERSUS PRIVATE ACTION

The First Amendment protects citizens from government restrictions on free expression. It is inapplicable to situations in which a private party restricts another’s speech. A private employer, for example, may forbid its employees from sharing the company’s trade secrets. Still, those employees enjoy First Amendment protections with respect to government action.

[1] See Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 50 (citing Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting)).

[2] Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983).

[3] Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 446 (1969).

[4] Id. at 447.

[5] New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279–80 (1964).

[6] Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974).

[7] Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (1985) (plurality opinion).

[8] Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

[9] See United States v. One Book Called “Ulysses”, 5 F. Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1933).

Download this publication (Freedom of Expression in the United States) as a .pdf

“Y’all,” short for “you all,” is a common expression throughout the southern United States — in this case, Florence, Kentucky.

When you meet Americans, can you tell which part of the country they are from simply by listening to them? Or if someone asked you to imitate an American, would you try to sound like you were from Texas, Southern California or somewhere else? Chances are, it would be an accent you heard in a film or TV show rather than what you learned in class.

The American accent most non-native speakers learn is just one among many used daily across the United States. Known as General American (GenAm), it is the same accent you would typically hear on network news, nationally syndicated radio, films and other media where the speakers do not want to draw attention to their background.

GenAm has its roots in Pennsylvania, Ohio and other areas that make up “the Rust Belt,” and it followed settlers westward through the Midwest to California and the Pacific Northwest. The rise of radio and television in the 20th century led media outlets to investigate which American accent seemed the most “neutral” to the public and would therefore be understood by the widest audience.

While most Americans can easily identify a Southern or New England accent, for example, GenAm has become the national standard, even though its native speakers are confined to a small area of the Midwest.

Most Americans grow up speaking the same way as their parents and neighbors, but sometimes they adopt more common language characteristics to sound less regional or better educated. For example, as a child with a strong Mid-Atlantic background, I once pronounced the U.S. capital city as “Warshington” and the nearby city of Baltimore as “Bawldimer.” My Virginia-born grandfather also worked hard to lose his Southern accent when he moved to New York, since regional accents often invite biased social judgments about the speaker.

BRITISH VERSUS AMERICAN ENGLISH

Like the United States, the United Kingdom has its own diversity of regional accents, and it has adopted a standard known as Received Pronunciation (RP) that is heard on the BBC and other national news outlets. If you are learning British English, you are most likely learning RP, which spread from southern England among the upper classes in the 18th and 19th centuries.

All Americans have some kind of an accent. Natives of a relatively small area of the Midwest are closest to the standard known as “General American.”

One noticeable difference is the American use of the flat “a,” so the word “dance” does not sound like “dahnce.” Perhaps the most easily identified difference between RP and GenAm is the pronunciation of the letter “r” in some words, which phoneticians call rhotacism. For example, an American newsreader will pronounce the r in “hard,” but on British media it will sound more like “hahd.”

Some American accents, especially in the South, New England and New York, where port cities maintained close trading ties with England, joined their British counterparts in dropping the r sound, but 18th- and 19th-century Americans living inland, many of whom were immigrants from Scotland, Ireland or northern England where the r is pronounced, kept the rhotic accent.

In fact, at the time of the American Revolution, the English language being spoken on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean was rhotic. Despite many films that show colonial Americans speaking in a modern British accent, it did not become fashionable to start dropping the r in places like Massachusetts and South Carolina until after the United States gained its independence.

English actor Hugh Laurie, famous for his role on the TV show House, has described American r’s and l’s as the “twin demons for anyone trying to do an American accent.” In a 2012 interview with National Public Radio, he said he warms up for his character by practicing the word “really.” Laurie’s accent is so good that the executive producer of House is said to have been completely unaware that he was English when he auditioned.

Along with helping to preserve the r sound, American speech has also retained several words and expressions that have fallen out of use in the United Kingdom. For example, Americans will still use “mad” for “angry” and “fall” for “autumn.”

Thanks to American films, music, TV shows and other media, American accents are becoming more familiar to nonnative English speakers. Some of the most famous examples of regional dialect have come from U.S. politicians. Compare the New England accent of President John F. Kennedy to Arkansas-native President Bill Clinton’s Southern style of speaking. Of course, both men, like most Americans, probably grew up thinking they didn’t have any kind of an accent!

By Stephen Kaufman

It is with deep sadness that we share the news of the loss of not only a great friend, but also a great benefactor of Fulbright and a confirmed believer in the importance of international educational exchange. As we bid a sad farewell to Frank Boas, his kindness will always be remembered.

Frank Boas, who passed away on March 16, 2013, was a resident of Brussels for over 20 years before returning to his home country, the United States. Frank earned his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard University; and in 1958, after a period of government service, came to Belgium where he founded a highly successful law practice. Frank was an early believer in the enormous possibilities open to American business in the then-newly formed European Community.

But the practice of law was by no means Frank’s only passion. From an early date he believed in two related causes. First, he was keen to help cement relations between Belgium and the United States. Second, he was convinced that the exchange of students at the university and post-university level between European countries, on the one hand, and the United States, on the other, was an excellent means for bringing Americans and Europeans together. And in doing so, he was convinced he could also be helpful to his alma mater, Harvard University.

Frank became a major donor to the Commission for Educational Exchange – known as the Fulbright Program, – particularly with respect to Belgian and Luxembourg students, researchers, and scholars who wished to attend the law school and other graduate study faculties at Harvard University. And, of course, his support enabled countless Americans to spend academic time in Belgium and other EU countries. The recently formed Harvard Boas Association is the grateful response of Fulbrighters who have gone on to successful careers thanks in good part to Frank’s largesse.

Upon retirement, Frank moved to Hawaii where he continued his support of Harvard University and Fulbright Programs. He was also an active donor to a variety of other educational and charitable organizations. Frank’s international and educational interests brought him many honor,s including decorations awarded by the Belgian and Luxembourg governments.

Frank was married to an American diplomat who predeceased him. He had no children; but his legacy of help to young people through education will long live after him.

Welcome to EJ|USA: Destination America, the inaugural issue of IIP’s reinvented monthly flagship publication.

Download this issue (11.1 MB | .pdf)

Contents of this issue:

Editor’s Note
See What’s New!
Managing Editor Elizabeth Kelleher introduces the new EJ|USA.

All About English
All About English: Words of Note from This Issue
©Merriam-Webster Learner’s English Dictionary

Short Takes
Snapshots of America
Illustrations: Lauren Russell
LEISURE
Fourth (of July) and Main Streets
 – Mark Trainer
A New American’s First Fourth
 – Mark Trainer

FEATURE: Destination America
U.S. Adventure Sports: Take the Leap
 – Tim Neville
Bend, Oregon – 
Tim Neville
Austin: Where the Music Knows No Limits
 – Michael Gallant and Jane L. Levere
Traveling to America: Do’s & Don’ts
: Suggestions on traveling in the USA
Brooklyn Abridged: Eat. Play. Shop – .
Jane L. Levere
Route 66: The Mother Road
: America’s Neon Legacy

COMMUNITIES
Ramadan at Princeton
 – Sohaib Sultan
A Souped-Up Van Feeds the Hungry
 – MacKenzie Babb

PEACE & SECURITY
Sowing Peace
 – MacKenzie Babb

EDUCATION
Young Americans Abroad
: Americans Without Borders
What Is a MOOC?
 Revolution or Fad?

ARTS
DNA, Like You’ve Never Heard It
 – Michael Gallant and Susan Milligan

SCIENCE
Robots Get Real
 – Lauren Monsen

MARKETPLACE
Getting in the Game
 – Andrzej Zwaniecki

LAST WORD
Why We Walked Out – 
Terry Kramer
Connecting the Dots

Connecting the Dots: Places mentioned in this issue

Download this issue (11.1 MB | .pdf)