High School Valedictorian Refuse to Bow Down; Has speech censored -

American Family Action ^ | June 22, 2006

[UnklGene]

High School Valedictorian Refuses to Bow Down; Has Speech Censored

June 21, 2006

Brittany McComb was the valedictorian at Foothill High School recently. She graduated with a 4.7 GPA. She earned the right to address the other graduates at Foothill, located in Henderson, Nevada.

She gave a copy of her graduating speech to the school administrators. It contained some Biblical references and even mentioned (one time) the name “Christ.” The school administrators censored some of the Biblical references. They also censored the single reference to Christ.

Then the school officials handed the speech over to the ACLU for approval and/or more censoring. After getting the OK from the ACLU, Brittany’s speech (minus the censored references to the Bible and Christ) was approved. Brittany was warned that if she deviated from the ACLU approved language, her mike would be cut off.

Then came the moment for the big decision. She would not bow down, she decided. She would go with her original version. She stepped to the mike and began her speech. But just before she could utter the name “Christ,” her mike went dead. School officials silenced her. The crowd of 400 jeered for several minutes, angry at the action of the school officials. The ACLU was happy. They had silenced another Christian.

“I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech. God’s the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior,” Brittany said.

Because she refused to bow down to the ACLU’s idol of gold, she did not get her wish. She was censored.

This young heroine deserves praise and a thank you from those who believe in free speech.

[HitmanLV]

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.

[HitmanLV]

The speech isn't about her, or didn't you know that?

[Sisku Hanne]

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.

[HitmanLV]

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.

[HitmanLV]

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.

[HitmanLV]

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.

[orionblamblam]

> 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...

[orionblamblam]

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.

[cva66snipe]

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.

[savedbygrace]

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.

[Mugwump]

"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.

[MEGoody]

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. :)

[Delphinium]

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.

[MEGoody]

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.

[Delphinium]

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?

[okstate]

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.

[MEGoody]

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.

[The Great RJ]

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.

[sinkspur]

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.

[Sam's Army]

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.