Great so the next one can pull out a joint and light up, or turn around and say that the Principal was caught in a compromising position with a poodle. I am certain that you would be okay with that.
There is no right to go through life without ever hearing something you find offensive. The idea that there is such a right is why school bureaucrats prohibit speeches that thank God. From your posts it appears that you also agree with that censorship by government bureaucrats. Is that your position?
The issue is not what is or not offensive, the issue is common sense. Freedom of speech is not, has never been, and was never intended to be absolute.
You are not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater, and you are not allowed to make libelous/ slanderous statements about another person.
The joint is a crime, and if the Principal really is outraging the delicacy of that poor poodle,,,HELL YES! Point right at the SOB on stage and TESTIFY! Say “I seent him myself, with my OWNNN eyes,,in flagrante delicto with Fifi!!”
Seize him! LOL
Wait wait,,And then we all look at poor fifi (who won’t look us in the eyes, confirming ALL our fears)
If only we had approved the speech in advance! This feels like the “no guns” sign at the mall. If a kid is so inclined as to spark up a fattie and accuse the principal of bestiality, do you think he will be deterred by the speech approval process?
Think that one ALL the way through smarticle.
“You are not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater, and you are not allowed to make libelous/ slanderous statements about another person.”
but in a speech, you can say “how the hell would person know”. Can you think of what might be different than your two examples? Hint,,think a victim being truly harmed.
(maybe the socratic method will work on you)
Lighting a joint would be a criminal offense. Advocating repealing drug prohibition isn’t. Saying the principal was caught in a compromising position with a poodle is libel unless true. If false it is a tort and in some jurisdictions a crime since the principal is a government agent. If it is true, let her say it.
She didn’t yell fire or make any libelous/ slanderous about another person. She just used a word some find offensive. You have no more right to have what you find offensive censored by government bureaucrats than atheists, or Mohammedans, or anyone else has.
Censorship of unpopular or offensive speech is far more dangerous than the speech is. We have far too much censorship as it is. We’re on our way to being like Canada where speech that offends special groups is a criminal act. Allowing a local bureaucrat censor speech moves us further in that direction.
As I pointed out above, we already have local bureaucrats censoring speeches that mention God or Jesus. Since you refuse to answer whether or not you support that censorship I have to assume you agree with doing that too.