Skip to comments.
High School Valedictorian Refuse to Bow Down; Has speech censored -
American Family Action ^
| June 22, 2006
Posted on 06/22/2006 10:46:58 AM PDT by UnklGene
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 181 next last
To: kitkat
I am a practicing Christian, but that has nothing to do with the concept that she reneged on her promise. If it was up to me, I wouldn't have made those edits. The school chose different edits. That's not, in itself, a Federal Case.
Running the speech by the ACLU is just dumb, though - I'd never do that, and they should have no expectation that they get to 'clear' speeches for constitutional soundness. Giving them that much credit isn't good policy.
But the ACLU didn't make the edits, the school did, which was their right. If she didn't like the edits, she should have refused them. If the school held its ground and they couldn't reach a compromise, she should have declined the invitation to speak, or sued (which is too common in the USA).
Just an obnoxious pest.
61
posted on
06/22/2006 12:10:32 PM PDT
by
HitmanLV
("5 Minute Penalty for #40, Ann Theresa Calvello!" - RIP 1929-2006)
To: swain_forkbeard
The speech isn't about her, or didn't you know that?
62
posted on
06/22/2006 12:11:09 PM PDT
by
HitmanLV
("5 Minute Penalty for #40, Ann Theresa Calvello!" - RIP 1929-2006)
To: HitmanLV
My original post was meant for you and okstate, who did call her a liar. But I removed their name. You said reneged, which some might consider a lie, since it implies going back on your word. I acknowledge my error, but stand by my opinion of your judgemental attitude and lack of logic.
You are flogging this girl who you don't even know with personal insults and assigning assumed motives to her choices. It's obnoxious and illogical.
63
posted on
06/22/2006 12:12:18 PM PDT
by
Sisku Hanne
(*Support DIANA IREY for US Congress!* Send "Cut-n-Run" Murtha packing: HIT THE ROAD, JACK!)
To: savedbygrace
And it could be wrong, I don't know what exactly happened. That's the facts as I am aware of them. If shown otherwise, I'll adapt my position. Fair is fair.
64
posted on
06/22/2006 12:12:25 PM PDT
by
HitmanLV
("5 Minute Penalty for #40, Ann Theresa Calvello!" - RIP 1929-2006)
To: Sisku Hanne
I imputed no motives to her at all.
A. She agreed to the edits the school made.
B. When she took the stage, she didn't honor the edits.
She may have lied. She may have just changed her mind. I don't know and never suggested I did.
What we do know for sure is that her behavior inexorably reneges on point A.
Of course I'm judgmental - she promised to give one speech and then showed disrespect when she decided to give a different speech. That's wrong. She didn't honor her word. I'm judgmental about that, of course.
And that's not illogical at all.
The only personal insult I have flogged on her is that I think she didn't honor her promise. Her status as an obnoxious pest stems from that conduct.
Like I said, I wouldn't have made the edits the school made. Based on what I have read, I don't find those comments problematic at all.
65
posted on
06/22/2006 12:18:50 PM PDT
by
HitmanLV
("5 Minute Penalty for #40, Ann Theresa Calvello!" - RIP 1929-2006)
To: Sisku Hanne
And for the record, reneges means "To fail to carry out a promise or commitment." It doesn't necessarily mean someone lied or was dishonest at all.
66
posted on
06/22/2006 12:20:52 PM PDT
by
HitmanLV
("5 Minute Penalty for #40, Ann Theresa Calvello!" - RIP 1929-2006)
To: ProudGOP
> She will never speak as Valedictorian in front of her class and their relatives again.
Hey! Neither will I! Blatant sexism, if you ask me...
67
posted on
06/22/2006 12:23:53 PM PDT
by
orionblamblam
(I'm interested in science and preventing its corruption, so here I am.)
To: kitkat
It's truly a shame that you were unable to understand what "silenced" means, and how using it as hyperbole damages whatever case was being made.
68
posted on
06/22/2006 12:25:00 PM PDT
by
orionblamblam
(I'm interested in science and preventing its corruption, so here I am.)
To: UnklGene
And the ACLU would have likely defended anyone else in court to say "I'd like to thank the prince of darkness....." calling it freedom of speech.
69
posted on
06/22/2006 12:28:06 PM PDT
by
cva66snipe
(If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
To: HitmanLV
I agree, and that's the way I try to conduct myself here. So, if you can find a reputable source I can access, I could accept it.
It still wouldn't change my opinion of the 1st Amendment, though. If Congress passes a law that is found to establish religion, then that law is null and void.
In the case of publicly funded schools, the laws involved are federal school funding laws. Those should be declared null and void if it is found that they establish religion.
But that would not remove students' right to speak freely and to freely exercise religion. (That means all students not only Christians.)
IOW, the federal government should (Constitutionally) not be funding public schools at all, or have any control over them in any way, if the 1st Amendment is violated as a result.
70
posted on
06/22/2006 12:29:08 PM PDT
by
savedbygrace
(SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
To: HitmanLV
"Of course I'm judgmental - she promised to give one speech and then showed disrespect when she decided to give a different speech. That's wrong. She didn't honor her word. I'm judgmental about that, of course."Well, IMHO, respect is an earned thing; even respect for certain institutions. I believe that speech is generally is far, far too highly censored these days. Mentioning Christ? this is wrong? Come on, I think there are many here who would even go so far as to say that her right to mention God (Christ) supersedes man's attempt at editing.
This goes way beyond a broken promise.
71
posted on
06/22/2006 12:29:23 PM PDT
by
Mugwump
(Mohammed -- The L. Ron Hubbard of the 7th Century)
To: 2banana
Nobody brought a bull horn as a backup?Apparently not. The ACLU should be glad I wasn't the one giving the speech. I have one of those voices that carries. :)
72
posted on
06/22/2006 12:31:07 PM PDT
by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: orionblamblam
So... this girl will never speak again?
She should have kept speaking at that particular event. And they made sure she will continue speaking. Lots more people are hearing her speech now.
To: sinkspur
The fact is, she agreed to deliver the edited speech, then went back on her agreement.I missed where in the article it says she agreed to anything.
There was nothing wrong with the speech this girl wanted to give. She wasn't advocating violence or sexual perversion. She was quoting some bible verses and mentioned 'Christ.' The school was totally out of line on this one, particularly in that they involved the ACLU in 'editing' the speech.
Funny, this girl could have given a speech advocating partial birth abortion and the school probably wouldn't have cared. But quote the bible and say the word 'Christ', and they totally freak out.
74
posted on
06/22/2006 12:35:38 PM PDT
by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: HitmanLV
The school is well within its rights to edit her speech. That has nothing to do with 'freedom.'
If it doesn't have anything to do with freedom, what does it have to do with? What gives the school the right to stop her freedom of speech?
To: Sisku Hanne
I consider telling your school's administration "Okay, I'll fix my speech to fit within the guidelines for commencement" and then not doing that and giving the original speech to be a lie.
76
posted on
06/22/2006 12:37:41 PM PDT
by
okstate
To: HitmanLV
She agreed to the edits the school made.Where does it say she agreed to anything? She was intimidated into not saying anything back to the school authorities, but that's about it.
When she took the stage, she didn't honor the edits.
Wrong. When she took the stage, she realized she no longer had anything to fear from those who had intimidated her.
she promised to give one speech
Again, show me in the article where she FREELY promised to give the edited speech.
The reality is, the school authorities acted totally outside the boundaries of that which is allowed by law. They should all be fired.
77
posted on
06/22/2006 12:40:04 PM PDT
by
MEGoody
(Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
To: UnklGene
A simple solution ...start a petition drive to recall all the members of the school board and seriously clean house with a new board by starting with termionating the contracts of the top school administrators. The people pay for the schools and school employees work for the people.
78
posted on
06/22/2006 12:42:00 PM PDT
by
The Great RJ
("Mir wölle bleiwen wat mir sin" or "We want to remain what we are." ..Luxembourg motto)
To: MEGoody
I missed where in the article it says she agreed to anything.On the TODAY show yesterday, she and her parents were on and she said that she had agreed to give the edited speech.
There wasn't really anything offensive in what she wanted to say, AFAIC, but that's not the point.
She gave her word to the administrators, then broke it. And they told her what would happen if she broke it.
79
posted on
06/22/2006 12:42:00 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
(Today, we settled all family business.)
To: okstate
She should have either refused to amend the speech and let the school make its move; or she should have refused to speak.
But we all know that free speech is only for liberal thoughts and ideas; like inserting a Crucifix in urine.
80
posted on
06/22/2006 12:42:45 PM PDT
by
Sam's Army
(If you have a problem with the word "God"; you've got a bigger problem.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 181 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson