Religious speech cut from Las Vegas graduation ceremony

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2006/jun/17/061710552.html

LAS VEGAS (AP) - The Clark County School District and free speech advocates are defending school officials' decision to cut short a high school valedictorian's commencement speech, saying the speech would have amounted to school-sponsored proselytizing.

Officials and a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that administrators followed federal law when they cut the microphone on Foothill High School valedictorian Brittany McComb as she began deviating from a preapproved speech and reading from a version that mentioned God and contained biblical references.

"There should be no controversy here," ACLU lawyer Allen Lichtenstein said. "It's important for people to understand that a student was given a school-sponsored forum by a school and therefore, in essence, it was a school-sponsored speech."

Administrators who vetted an early draft of McComb's speech cut six references to God or Christ, and omitted two biblical references. They also deleted a detailed reference to the crucifixion of Christ.

Presuming a neutral selection process the valedictorian should be able to say what she wants to say. What would prevent a school from letting a gay or lesbian valedictorian from mentioning his or her sexuality in a speech? What would prevent them from censoring opposition to Bush in a speech?

is that there is nothing unconstitutional about them.

Using a state-sponsored forum to promote religion is.

but more like cable access. This student earned the right to give this speech and shouldn't be censored while doing so.

And they make the decisions around here as to what is or isn't unconstitutional.

But please, do go to bat for the Christian fundies. I'm sure they'll return the favor and support your rights, too.

Either we have free speech or we don't. This young lady won, by being the student with the highest GPA, the right to give a short speech on any subject of her choosing. She chose God. The next one might choose to oppose Bush's war. Both should have the right to do so.

on the topic of her choosing. Traditionally a valedictorian looks back on the previous four years less as an individual than as a member of her class--i. e., she represents all the graduating students, not just herself. There should be a lot more "we's" than "I's" in her speech. When she veered off into talking exclusively about herself and her religion, she was not only rude but specifically excluded students who are Jewish, Hindu, atheist, Wiccan, Muslim, Buddhist, etc..

And yes, faculty can be required by contract and regulation to attend graduations, not only at the high school but at the college and university level.

What's the point of addressing other students if the school is controlling what you say? "Free speech" does not seem to be worth a lot if it's the state that dishes out the boundaries to students in the name of "tolerance" or "courtesy" or whatever.

Even if she did exclude Jews, Hindus, Muslims, whoever, isn't that her right as a student? She'll certainly have that right as an adult.

The message I'm seeing here is that Christian Valedictorians cannot evoke their faith in graduation speeches, and I don't think that's consistent with either the Constitutional rights of students or the prohibition on state-sponsored religion.

This is horrible PR to middle America in an election year.

Now, there's no law that says she has to take other students into consideration, but the long, long tradition of valedictory speeches is that the valedictorian looks back on the experience of the last four years as a representative of her class. It's a farewell speech (vale--goodbye; diction-speech) on their behalf. Now, of course a valedictorian can make it "all about me," just as she can eat her mashed potatoes with her fingers. But the best one can say for either behavior is that it's rude.

As an adult, when she does not represent other people, she'll be perfectly free to run around in a sheet and pillowcase if she's so inclined. Or she can go to seminary and spend her life preaching to congregations of the like-minded. But she can't do it on the state's dime.

"The taxpayers" are not losing a dime of money, nor is it draining state resources. The most anyone can say is that it is a captive audience, but she is the Valedictorian of the graduating class. She's earned the right to talk about her religion without having her mike pulled. The state is not endorsing or sponsoring what she is saying. What they are doing is restricting her from speaking about something that is special and meaningful to her, and that's something I'll never defend.

but I did say she could have left the room for the valedictorians speech ( if nothing else she could say she had to use the restroom)

cable access gives the viewer the option to change the channel or walk away.

As a public school teacher, I don't have that option. I am required as part of my contract to attend that ceremony. Making Christian services part of my mandatory job duties as a state employee is nothing like airing a show on cable access.

Likewise, I would have a problem with our staff having to sit politely through a mandatory event that made a point of repeatedly denying the existence of God.

that if you chose to walk out during such a speech you would be fired. I do know about having to attend graduation, as I do as well. But we certainly can leave during a speaker if we have need of doing so.

through the process of her valedictorial speech, to make others uncomfortable to the point of needing to leave the assembly, thereby causing the person leaving to put in jeapordy their livelyhood and career as a teacher?

just so she can preach?

i don't think so.

edit to add, that if a anyone was so uncomfortable as to have to leave, and that act of leaving was in any way used against them in a retaliatory manner, the student should be sued for creating an unacceptable environment which caused discomfort, requiring an action to be taken, which resulted in harassment and discrimination.

Whether it's a conservative student who does not like her talking about charity and tolerance, and pro-military student who does not like her talking about peace, or a straight student who does not like her talking about equal rights.

No one has the right not to be offended, least of all students who are listening to a member of their own body.

She earned that right by being valedictorian. Just like Hilary Clinton earned the right to take on Senator Brookes. It would be one thing if a teacher gave this speech or even worse the Superintendent did, but she is neither of those things. She is instead, a person who earned a right to give a speech.

If I were there, I may very well have felt uncomfortable with the content of the speech. But, that's what free speech is about. It can make some people feel uncomfortable, even angry.

What if she was lambasting Bush or talking about the illegality of the Iraq War? What if she was talking about the importance of tolerance and fairness? What if she was talking about how the whole concept of religion is ridiculous? What if she was talking about a thousand other topics I can think of that would make some people "uncomfortable"? That's not a valid reason in of itself to censor her.

There may have been a valid reason - state-sponsored/church and state - but I'm not sure that it's very clear cut in this case. It's a slippery slope. In any event, "making others uncomfortable" is absolutely NOT a valid reason.

....want to talk about your sexuality in an graduation speech?? It has nothing to do with graduating...

You should be able to say what you want, but it should not be a platform to for propaganda...This has nothing to do with the Left or right, it was obviously the schools decision..

or discuss an iterest in become a gay rights attorney, or chastize my fellow students for making my life hell because I was gay? I have certainly heard speeches from valedictorians assuming marriage and children which tells me they are straight.

But it does explicitly mention something about the state not sponsoring or endorsing any particular religion.

a valedictorian is.

Also, as someone mentioned upthread, teachers have no choice in whether of not to attend the event, so it amounts to enforced prostelyzation (sp?). Should these students want to have a private ceremony that included a prayer circle, that would be their own business.

The girl clearly lied, as she submitted a written speech that varied from her oral presentation on this extremely important point. Also, it's just plain rude. Frankly, I don't see how either of these behaviors help Christians in their efforts to persuade people to convert.

I don't mind a little ecumenical nod to a non-denominational notion of God, but talking about the crucification is just taking it too far. As someone who is not convinced of the reality of the Christian miracle stories I find their mention in public ceremonies offputting. It has the effect of separating rather than uniting a group (unless you are in a church).

I fail to see what harm comes from letting a student who earned the right to give a speech on subject she likes to give a speech on any subject she likes. On the otherhand, I can easily see the harm in letting petty public officials censor speech. I know which end of the censor spectrum the speech I like would be. It is one thing if the offical graduation speaker does this, but quite another if a student does it. You do have a point that she shouldn't have lied but she shouldn't have had to lie.

I still think that including denominational religious themes in a graduation speech at a public school gives the appearance that the school (and therefore the public) is endorsing a particular religion. This is different from a debating situation, for example. In that case I would say that any religious topic would be fair game, even at a public school.

I know that valedictorians sometimes veer into controversial areas, though, and I wouldn't want to completely eliminate that. They are supposed to be (in part) forward looking speeches, about the challenges of adult life, so some controversial areas are worth exploring.

My interpretation of the U.S. Constitution puts this girls speech over the line, though. At a private school it would be fine. At a public school, not fine.

She is a student. She wasn't chosen based on the content of her speech. She was chosen on the basis of her GPA. She could have been a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddist, or an atheist. In this case she was a conservative Christian. In every case she should have been able to give the speech she wished.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't have wanted a religious speech from any of the other groups you name. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Ultimately it would be up to the Supreme Court, not that I think this particular case would ever go to that level.

for anything except obscenity and other unprotected forms of speech.

Under the Constitution, state funds cannot be used for the promotion of religion.

think about what you're suggessting for a minute, and ask what Christians like this girl would think of Democrats for supporting such a restrictive code.

And then tell me what will happen with gay and other non-traditional students when this criteria for "acceptable" speech swings toward them.

If she wants to spend her speech proselytizing then let her. She's certainly paid her dues while all the other students were probably playing gameboys and goofing-off in class.

Too bad she'll be voting Republican for the rest of her life now, and probably working to undermine the ACLU. We could use a lot more people like this student in the fold, and a lot less people like these bureaucrats who pulled the plug on her mike.

NOT a blank check to use the event for any old purpose she wishes.

So delusional. So infantile! So out of touch with reality.

She's there as a member of a very large body: the human race. She is NOT queen of the world.

and she was rewarded by having her mike cut-off by bureaucrats when she said something with which they disagreed.

She's not there as a member of "the human race." She's there as the member of the class with the highest GPA, and she should have the final say on what themes and messages her speech covers.

This Valedictorian may have been haughty, but she was obviously somewhat intelligent, and we've lost her for life now b/c the administrators decided they didn't like what she had to say.

If that's the message of the Democratic Party on religion, then you'd better get used to being in the minority, 'cause we'll never be viable again if we don't find a place for religious discussion in public, especially for students.

confused as to why you believe she would be a progressive. She sounds brainwashed and very immature to me.
There are plenty of world issues that she could have discussed rather than becoming a Christian missionary zealot for a day.

and you praise the state for silencing her when she dared use her speech to talk about what she wanted.

A student making a stand for free-speech in a forum that they earned through academics sounds extremely progressive to me. Far more so than saluting the state for cutting off someone's mike.

event in a state sponsored forum to proselytize. What about the Jewish people that would have had to listen to a zealotry speech about Jesus. What about Satanists, atheists, Wiccans, Muslims, etc.
She should just blatantly insult these people because of her missionary zeal?

I am not against free speech, I am against any blurring of the interference with state and religion.
Free speech is not unlimited, she could not have yelled fire. Civility should have stopped her from insulting other people's religions.

You apparently have your own definition of Progressive. She definitely does not sound like a liberal to me.

She should also have that right as a student. My definition of Progressive is someone who stands up for their freedom to say and believe what they want, and this certainly meets that criteria. It certainly is not the state dictating to a student what she can and can't say as Valedictorian.

She will never be a liberal now, because the mean 'ole Democratic-leaning school administrators cut-off her mike, and the ACLU got involved to make sure she wouldn't win in court.

There are reasons we're in the minority in this country right now, and this incident represents one of them.

good luck on your beliefs.

unemcumbered with any delusions of grandiosity. She treated the event as would any responsible student.

We've LOST HER? What? Where'd you last see her? She couldn't have gotten too far.

Someone go get the bloodhounds.

Nice try.

I wouldn't mind losing a little Hitler, myself.

You should remember, this was a school function, not a "Day of the Valedictorian" event.

as he did all those who would not conform to the state. And some people here are cheering the same autocratic tactics he used b/c they were aimed at someone with whom they disagree.

Your mother had the right to talk about whatever she wanted, just like this girl. I'm certain she did not have her mike cut.

Without respect for the community, you're just barking in the wind. No one really sees you as a mature, responsible person.

This is NOT a religious service. Nothing you can say is going to sway one person here. Might as well hang it up, but of course, you won't. I'll check back to see how long you intend to string this out.

I'm sorry we disagree, but that's no reason to be uncivil to each other.

Peace.

They just can't push religion in a school-sponsored forum with a captive audience.

you're saying evangelicals cannot evangelize at any public schools.

Does that include school-sponsored religious clubs and religious events at public colleges? Cause I don't see any difference between those kinds of expression and a student who earned a speech expressing her beliefs.

No, I am NOT saying that, so kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth.

I am saying that there must be a clear line between personal expression of belief, which is fine, and even the APPEARANCE of school-(state)sponsored religious speech. There isn't a clear line in this case.

"Does that include school-sponsored religious clubs and religious events at public colleges?"

My initial reaction is that schools should not be allowed to sponsor religious events or clubs if they receive federal funding. That does not preclude students from having those clubs without any direct school aid whatsoever (for example, a Christian club that meets at lunch in the cafeteria that is not led by, or involved with, faculty).

I think there is room for both separation of church and state AND personal student expression of belief.

There should be room for both separation of church and state and personal student expression.

But if this was a student who was addressing their class as Valedictorian, it's hard for me to imagine how any rational person would construe that as school-sponored speech. Even if a member of the audience is offended by something another student says in a student speech, I think the rational response would be to simply acknowledge a difference in opinion and put up with it. That would certainly be the adult response (far more so than using the state to silence the student).

I think it would be very difficult to do away with school-sponsorship of clubs as most clubs depend on school-cooperation for funding and resources (using classrooms, organizing events, etc.). I believe that the X-tian student organizations are entitled to the same privilleges as the "secular" clubs.

Here's why: THE SPEECHES ARE APPROVED BY ADMINISTRATORS.

Of course, the girl deviated from the approved speech, but only those who had seen and approved the speech realized this. It looked to the rest of the school, faculty and students, that this was approved by the school (until they cut the mike, of course).

If the speech she was stopped from giving had been approved, there would DEFINITELY be a violation of the Establishment Clause at work here. So, in a weird way, I guess the fact that she was dishonest maybe didn't get the school on the hook for a violation, but gave the appearance - up until she was stopped - that a violation took place.

If that makes sense?

I do not believe the school should have the final say in what the student says at graduation.

It just seems like the girl was handed a script to read by the school, and when she decided to deviate from the script, they pulled the plug on her. I realize in the pluralist society in which we live the school must consult the student about what is spoken, but weeding out religious language that is very personal and special to the speaker is certainly not what the Founders had in mind, especially not at the expense of the student's personal beliefs.

There could be a valid argument that the same Establishment Clause which bars the school from endorsing religion also bars the school from silencing the expression of religion by students. Those six magic words at the end of the 'First that are so seldom mentioned at this board "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Surely if the students have a right to express religious beliefs that includes a speech that they've earned through academic excellence. If not, then I don't know that free speech is worth all that much.

I am not a fundamentalist, nor do I agree with what the girl said, but unless I want administrators to start dictating limits to my own speech in the name of "decency" or whatever, I'm going to take her side because I realize the axe could swing toward me.

I know if this had been a protest over the Iraq War, or even a Muslim or Wiccan student, the gears would completely shift at this board, and suddenly the student would be a martyr to free speech. You will probably tell me it would not, but somehow I just know it would.

It seems to me it was the student who was the victim here, and not the "offended" members of the audience.

She is giving a speech. She isn't being paid, she is giving speech that she earned the right to give.

nt

Thats good to hear...So what does the "possible" crucifixtion have to do with graduating anyway? How many students were of other faiths?

They fail in their attemp to use their christian religion to turn society, If all else fails the Muslim community will be the standing factor against this zionistic cult. They beat their christian asses on more then one occasion and I am sure they will continue to do so..

pleasantly surprised in how little religion was include. I mean this is the buckle of the bible belt and 80% Republican. Some people just refuse to accept the fact that not everyone is Christian which apparently is the case in Nevada.

A graduation ceremony attended by people of all faiths should respect all in attendance. The actions of the valedictorian were disrespectful and violated separation of church and state.

Next, as a condition for being named valedictorian, the student will be compelled to convince the school district that she/he is in 100% agreement with all policy positions of the school system.

Preapproved speeches are a chicken-shit way to stifle any individual dissent from whatever prevailing orthodoxy holds sway.

be for the student to be forced to agree with school policy. At least for now, we still have Constitutional law in place that forbids state-sponsored religion, which is precisely what allowing her speech would be. Cheers to the responsible school officials.

no reason for a captive audience to be subjected to religious proselytizing in a state sponsored forum. Leave the religious spouting and foaming for church and those that want to hear it.

If the speaker had started speaking about her disagreement with the war, or other political statements, and the school forced her to stop, you would be up in arms. This is not at all a church and state argument. It is just PC speech going overboard.

You have no idea of what I would say. Can you not make your arguments without putting your words in other people's mouths? This is a state sponsored forum whether you like or not. Why piss off a bunch of people sitting in a captive audience by ranting on about sky people?

There IS a separation of church and state, however.

A student speaking is a free-speech matter -- it's not state-sponsored religion.

It's really bad for us separation of church and state people -- of whom I am a life-long member -- to confuse the difference between state-sponsorship and individual advocation of religion. Administrators should not have vetted her speech for religious content, imho.

if the student wanted to glorify Satanism, human-dog sex, praise the Holocaust etc.

She's not being paid, she signed no contract (unlike teachers and administrators).

I think she should be allowed to say anything legal she wants to say (that is, anything you can say in public without getting arrested. No threats.) So she talks about human-dog sex -- gross, but it doesn't hurt anyone. Whereas clamping down on the free expression of young citizens IS harmful.

We really lose out if our graduating students are speaking as representatives of the state.

I find listening to religious proselytizing even more offensive than human-dog sex.

The holy shit would fly. Let her find an audience that's not captive to spew her supernatural beliefs.

that the speech given at graduation is intended to speak for and be advice for all graduates.

A Christian using Christian verses and Christian value judgements speaking at a public school graduation is not doing that.

Cutting the mike was justified.

he should be cut-off, because he's not addressing the needs of the conservative students?

That criteria pretty much bars a valedictorian from talking about anything that's personal or special to them to avoid "alienating" the other students. Students at a public high school have a right to talk about their faith, especially if they've earned it by making the best grades.

But I think the dangers of clamping down on an individual's religious speech outweighs the problem with her giving a speech that is irrelevent, offensive, and annoying.

These young people are practically adults -- they're on the way out the door to the real world. I believe they legally have the right to speak about their religious beliefs as long as they're not speaking as an agent of the school or government.

But we also have a moral obligation to not censor in this situation, IMHO.

It's the Valedictorian, a position of honor that is earned purely through academic excellence, not selection of anyone or any body related to the school, and as such, the Valedictorian should have the right to speak whatever they want to speak.

And the people assembled have the right to boo as much as they want.

I don't think that the student should be considered an agent of the state in this case: he is an agent of his class, speaking as a peer to his peers. The valedictorian is in no position of power or influence at all, and so if he or she wants to talk about faith, or masturbation, or setting the old warehouse on fire, then have at it.

Forcing a speaker to submit his or her speech for approval first speaks of rampant nazism.

People need to have the freedom to speak their mind when they are asked to speak, and let the chips (booing, catcalling, shouting them down, etc.) fall where they may.

would yell at her to stfu because she was proselyting?

Being offended, and/or taking the risk of others thinking less of you, is all part of the game of going to a public speech.

One can either sit and be quiet and say silently "What a fucking asshole", or scream it out, or just let it ride, or walk out or whatever.

While the people should be guaranteed no proselyzing from the government paid staff, there is no guarantee in life that every speaker one ever hears will be someone with whom one agrees.

To cry foul on this one is to be a big baby, in my opinion.

Some people might be upset by the proselyzing - I would be, but if it was a student doing it, then so be it. I went to a graduation two weeks ago and I was offended because the student who spoke was a piece of shit speaker who said nothing original, nothing of value, and said it very uninterestingly. I could have stood up and said, "You suck - let me edit that piece of shit for you quickly!", but I didn't. I decided instead to think to myself, "Well, this is a fucking waste of 15 minutes of my life, but so be it, that's the risk I take. Next time, the speaker might be bloody amazing."

It is a formal occasion. Social etiquette would have kept me silent. Yet the speaker obviously felt no compunction in deciding to proselytize to what amounts to a captive audience.

She earned it by getting the best GPA, and it's her speech.

In this case, the crowd did not even have the opportunity to boo or cat-call, as the school pulled the plug on the valedictorian's mike when she said something with which they didn't agree.

She reneged on her submitted speech.

I am an ACLU member, and I always hate it when they make an incredibly bad call, as they have in this case. I feel their actions reflect on me, and I try to call them on poor decisions as consistently as possible. Hopefully, the valedictorian will win this in court, but it won't change the fact that she was silenced by the state.

The majority gets these perks, you know. If the minority wants to stop it, let them boo and be ostracized by the majority Christian community. They deserved it for not shutting up and accepting their place. :sarcasm:

that she had no intention of giving, regardless of whether the requirement to preview was legal, and substituted her own brand of brain washed hell fire and brimstone to further her own proselytizing needs or her parents.

I am sick to death of christians trying to shove their religion down everyone's throat. They should stfu once in a while, long enough to realize that most people don't give a shit about their relgion.. and don't want to be subjected to a religious speech at a public high school.. and detailed description of a crucifixion.. I hope she gets the pychiatric care she obviously needs...

about not giving a speech that hadn't been approved.

While I think it's jackass wrong to make a speech giver submit their speech to the government representativeas for approval before giving it, that was the condition she was under, and, in a totally unchristian maneuver worthy of any right leaning republican fake Christian, she said a great big "Fuck you" to everyone.

While I applaud her for the great big FUCK YOU to the government and fascist principal (civil disobedience is a wondrous thing, even when the hypocritical rightists do it!), it's too bad she wasted her fuck you so stupidly.

But in my ideal world, the girl would have been allowed to say whatever she wanted in her speech and wouldn't have to be censored before the speech and then later censored again while giving it.

for broke, and thinking of ways to satisfy their deepest longings, like informing everyone they are, in their own views, so much holier than everyone else.

Well, wingnut freaking idiots, most people have more dignity than that. We all know what's in the Bible, and we don't use it to beat others over the head.

Wingnuts always show us they are brought up by hyenas. They have no respect for the greater good. Whereas they could do something more thought-out, more uplifting, more sustaining, they resort to pulpit pounding and Bible waving. That's why people view them as juvenile, and crude.

Emotional coercion does NOT work. People resent it. They resent you if you put your own beliefs above theirs, and violate their rights.

I was raised among these people. They are frightened, and childish. The brighter ones among them strike out and move away from this sick, hysterical, emotional environment.

The hardest lesson to learn is SELF control, not control of others.

What if she had said this instead "The crucified Jesus I worship commands me to tell those of you who joined the military that you should refuse to go to Iraq and kill innocent children. He commands me to tell you to instead volunteer to help the poor people in this country that Bush couldn't care less about." and they turned off the mike.

Somehow I suspect many of you would be way less concerned about religion in that case. But when you give petty government officials power over speech they take power over all speech, not just some.

mentioned "the crucified Jesus I worship," she would have crossed the line -- even if she went on to denounce a war I hate and protested against.

then it's difficult for me to comprehend what exactly they gain from supporting Democrats.

This is not the school or its administrators who are preaching here, it's the student who earned the privillege of addressing her class by making the best grades.

It's a great shame that the Progressive Movement has just lost this gifted student for life because of the actions of misguided low-level bureaucrats and the ACLU.

were above the rules. She lied.

and she rightly ignored them. I imagine a critic of the Administration would have been silenced, too. I'm glad there are still some individuals who do what is right, as opposed to what is legal, like Cindy Sheehan.

illegal. You are dredging up pure muck now to support a position that you seem to have little support for.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/102505B.shtml

Every day at 6 p.m., we will have a "die-in." We will ask everyone who is present at 6 p.m. to lie down and represent a dead soldier. At that point, the park police will give us three warnings before they arrest us. We are not encouraging people to get arrested. That is a very personal decision. I am planning to not get up on the day after the 2,000th soldier is killed. I may be arrested. Then, when they let me out, I will go back and lie back down. We in America have let this criminal administration get away with murder for too long. Enough is enough. It's time to start practicing non-violent civil disobedience ( C.D.) on a large scale.

...there would be a violation of church and state.

(I know you haven't had a chance to see me make that point above, so please know I'm not attacking you.)

country. Listening to wacko wingnuts rant on about sky people makes me want to puke.

spew into this:


I'm right there with you, Vegas.

I tolerate it, like I tolerate the lady down the
street that believes space aliens park in her
garage.

Any other attitude just gets me nowhere.

In which the speaker speaks about the effect of God (or other religious deity/figure) in their life and positive values like love, faith, and hope. I think that speeches about people who don't following the speaker's religion going to hell or being evil is obviously offensive and probably doesn't belong in a speech in mixed company, especially for a public school ceremony. We don't know what she was saying so we don't know if the school was overreacting or making a good call.
Incidently, the valendictorian that graduated two years ahead of me also deviated severely from his submitted speech. It wasn't religious. It was about freedom, critical thinking, and the pursuit of the truth. He criticized the school administration and many of the staff for stiffling these things in students and how the other graduates need to pursue these things in college and the real world. Personally, I was shocked about the speech and how the principal did nothing except look uncomfortable. I later found out that the prinicipal had censored his submitted speech, made him submit a new one, and ended up losing it.
I'm all for free speech.

The valedictorian here LIED and began reading off-script, without the knowledge or consent of the administrators.

Our views on the policy of approved speeches aside, at that point the school didn't know WHAT she might say, and since this was a school-sponsored event paid for with tax dollars, they could have been on the hook for any number of things, including (as this would have been, had she continued) a likely violation of the Establishment clause.

Does it surprise anyone, pro or con, that the school shut her down? They didn't want to get sued.

they should all be killed. Who knows at this point when zealotry was obviously in such high gear inside her mind.

...it's a sad state in America when everything has to be hush hush goodie goodie before you can do anything.

I mean how many people would have sued regardless of what she said about Jesus? Liberal or conservative? It's sick.

is also very motivated to speak out about Jesus, as was this girl who went so far as to falsify her speech. Once the glazed eyes of the true believer take over, no one knows what will be said.

what else can you call her willful deviation from the vetted speech?

Because she lied, and read from a speech the school did not approve, I think there's no violation.

If they had approved the speech she tried to give, there would have been a violation.

Weird, huh?