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
> But should the “state” be the one that determines the consequence for otherwise “free” speech?
Probably not. But who’s to say it wasn’t just the Principal saying “I can’t work with her, and I won’t sanction an extra-mural after-school activity if it requires me, in my spare personal time, to work with her.”?
Principals are individuals, too, and if it isn’t a part of the core curriculum they aren’t legally required to deliver it.
When they take that approach, are they a part of the State? Or are they merely exercising their individual right to free association?