> You get no argument there DieHard; but the point IS that she has a right to be rude and disrespectful under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
It’s true. But Free Speech isn’t always Consequence-free Speech. Sometimes what we say can come back to bite us in the arse.
I can put myself in this Principal’s position very easily:
“Here’s me, sanctioning an extra-mural activity that is going to take lots of my after-school time and for which I will not be paid one brass razzoo extra. The Student Government, where they all get to test-drive making adult decisions. I’m fine with that concept so far.
“And here we have this particular student, who has called me a “Douche-bag” in the past, in public, on her Internet blog. She is a brat and will not work productively with the Administration.
“So I’m supposed to donate my time and effort to a Student Government, of which she will be a member, and for my efforts I am expected to tolerate future episodes of Douche-baggery and abuse on her blog — or perhaps even worse? Whatever next?
“Shyeah right. Hang that for a bad joke! Where’s that in my employment contract? I’m not going to have her on the Student Government because I cannot work with her.”
First amendment doesn’t enter into that part of the discussion: all the Principal needs do is say “either she goes or I don’t sanction the activity” and that’s that.
It’s Realpolitik, to be sure, but certainly not illegal.
But should the “state” be the one that determines the consequence for otherwise “free” speech? That is a slippery slope to tread, and I would rather err on the side of caution— once the state determines who can and can’t say and what they can and can’t say, it is a short hop to us having devotionals to “dear leader” daily and clutching the red book to our chests. “I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it”—Voltaire