Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]


To: sinkspur
On the TODAY show yesterday, she and her parents were on and she said that she had agreed to give the edited speech.

Okay, I didn't see the Today show so I'll take your word for it. Still and all, a teen who is being told by school officials, backed up by the ACLU, that she can only give THIS speech is likely going to be intimidated.

She gave her word to the administrators, then broke it.

She was intimidated into agreeing to something that was completely out of line for the school officials to have demanded. THEY were wrong, not her.

124 posted on 06/22/2006 2:23:22 PM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
You only agree with the power to censor, if the censorship is something that disagrees with you. Like that of a Christian taking a stand against the cultural excesses of modern government approved secularism by stating facts about her faith. When was that ever against the law before the left ignored all previous meaning of the first amendment.

Your point of view is the polar opposite of the good will view of the American people and the understanding of the Constitution for two centuries. Americans never voted free Christian speech out of schools, that was the act of an ignorant court based only upon an ignorant whim. What do you think triggered the Conservative uprising against activist judges. It was the obvious mishandling of the Constitution and make believe justifications at the hands of opportunistic judges who saw political opportunity.

You are a willing victim of deranged ACLU thought and newspeak. You will continue fighting conservatives as a loyal allie of the far left.

Your view of the Constitution never agreed with more than a handful of American citizens and was forced into the first amendment only by some judges who ignored American history. Everyone knows this illogical, unhistorical reinvention of the first amendment is false, even the liberals agreed that is was. For years they tried to justify it on the grounds of a legal positivist approach, now they don't even do that, they just lie about it. That is why the court didn't rule that way for about fifteen decades.

The reason why you like the ignorance of the ACLU viewpoint is because you have a well displayed dislike of Christianity. Of course you want to ignore history and censor free speech of a Christian because it is really just the message you dislike.

The marxist and immoral speech by youngsters in the radical movements of the 1960s was defended tooth and nail by the same ACLU that now attacks Christian speech that was never deemed unlawful for two centuries of American free will. So don't give us any more of your laughing gas, we know better.

I was born long ago and have watched the legal atrocities of the fringe marxists who led the charge to undo the Constitution so it could be soiled by an ACLU scribe. You don't mind their acts of treason one bit because their baseless rewrite agrees with your biases. You know I'm right, just like they know I'm right, but like them, you just don't care.

159 posted on 06/23/2006 7:58:24 AM PDT by Old Landmarks (No fear of man, none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson