There could be one or more legal issues spotted here, but the one I’m clinging onto the most is the one about Tan’s mothers broken English. I feel as though Tan is violating her mom’s First Amendment right. In simplest terms, the First Amendment is the freedom to speech, religion, and press. In the article Tan states, “I know this for a fact, because when I was growing up, my mother’s “limited” English limited my perception of her. I was ashamed of her English. I believed that her English reflected the quality of what she had to say That is, because she expressed them imperfectly her thoughts were imperfect.” Why does Tan feel the need to be embarrassed? Surely, because she is Asian, a lot of people would mock her mother, but that shouldn’t be the only outcome. Tan also states, “And I had plenty of empirical evidence to support me: the fact that people in department stores, at banks, and at restaurants did not take her seriously, did not give her good service, pretended not to understand her, or even acted as if they did not hear her.” I wonder what Tan’s evidence is that justifies her not violating her mother’s First Amendment right. The only justification Tan can make for not violating her mom’s right is if her mom said hate speech because hate speech is not righteous. However, this quote may be considered otherwise because Tan states, “My mother has long realized the limitations of her English as well. When I was fifteen, she used to have me call people on the phone to pretend I was she. In this guise, I was forced to ask for information or even to complain and yell at people who had been rude to her.” The keywords I suspected are “complain, yell, and rude.” All these words tie into hate speech. Overall, First Amendment rights shouldn’t be violated and hate speech shouldn’t be above that, matters can be solved in a responsible, timely manner.