Skip to comments.
School withholds valedictorian’s diploma for saying “hell”
KFOR-TV ^
| August 18, 2012
| La'Tasha Givens
Posted on 08/21/2012 7:51:43 AM PDT by servo1969
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-118 last
To: verga
Lighting a joint would be a criminal offense. Advocating repealing drug prohibition isnt. 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 didnt 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. Were 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.
101
posted on
08/21/2012 3:42:48 PM PDT
by
SUSSA
To: servo1969
So a school with the sports name of Red Devils...has a problem with the word "hell".....
Weird.
This "Doctor" Dip Wad needs to be fired. He works for US!!
102
posted on
08/21/2012 3:51:02 PM PDT
by
Osage Orange
("Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.")
To: TexasFreeper2009
I’d guess the “foul-mouthed brat” is a hell of lot smarter than you.....
103
posted on
08/21/2012 3:53:11 PM PDT
by
Osage Orange
("Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.")
To: ecomcon
Its pretty fn easy, really.Guess you don't consider FReeper's "polite company".
HAHA!!
104
posted on
08/21/2012 3:55:20 PM PDT
by
Osage Orange
("Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.")
To: Gay State Conservative
Deliberately misleading the school with the text she submitted before the speech particularly egregiousAnd you know this how?
105
posted on
08/21/2012 3:56:46 PM PDT
by
Osage Orange
("Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.")
To: Ole Okie
Jim Thorpe was a relative of mine...
106
posted on
08/21/2012 3:58:25 PM PDT
by
Osage Orange
("Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.")
To: TexasFreeper2009
How 'bout this.....
You are bitching too much.
Is that proper context?
107
posted on
08/21/2012 4:00:59 PM PDT
by
Osage Orange
("Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.")
To: UCANSEE2
LOL!!
Exactly!!..if this was MA, NY, or CT. But this is OK......
108
posted on
08/21/2012 4:03:56 PM PDT
by
Osage Orange
("Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.")
To: SUSSA; DesertRhino
Lighting a joint would be a criminal offense. Advocating repealing drug prohibition isnt. 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 didnt 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. Were 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 Once again the point is not what its offensive, the point is that the speech had been approved as written not as spoken. They had a "contract" that should would give the speech she promised to present,she violated that, and received a punishment.
As far as the "censorship" drum you keep beating, I do approve of some censorship. I don't want teenage children going to see x rated movies. I don't want any of my nieces or nephews reading the "Shades of gray" novels out now.
I am not offended by her use of the word "Hell" I am offended that she said she would deliver one speech and then didn't do as she had said.
109
posted on
08/21/2012 5:11:14 PM PDT
by
verga
(Forced to remove tag line by administrator)
To: DesertRhino
actually you have it exactly backward.
Conservatives believe in the rule of law, the leftest anarchists throwing a fit at WTO meetings are more your kind of person.
To: DesertRhino
in many cities the use of profanities is also a crime.
To: verga
The punishment is far too harsh for a slip of the tongue. I guess you never made a mistake when speaking in front of hundreds of people.
But the bigger issue is the government agency shouldnt have censored her speech in the first place. Had there been no prior censorship by the bureaucrats there would have been no issue. The bureaucrat wouldnt have known that she misspoke one word in her speech.
As for the government having the power to ban what your kids may and may not read, that leads to things like the Bible and Huckleberry Finn being banned from school reading lists. Its your job to decide what they read and what they watch. It isnt up to the government to dictate what your kids may read or watch.
112
posted on
08/21/2012 5:56:09 PM PDT
by
SUSSA
To: SUSSA
I will save my breath since it is very clear that you only intent is to completely misunderstand. Good luck.
113
posted on
08/21/2012 6:59:11 PM PDT
by
verga
(Forced to remove tag line by administrator)
To: SUSSA
I will save my breath since it is very clear that you only intent is to completely misunderstand. Good luck.
114
posted on
08/21/2012 7:00:00 PM PDT
by
verga
(Forced to remove tag line by administrator)
To: Osage Orange
Jim Thorpe was a relative of mine...No kidding? Jim still needs to have his Olympic medals restored to him.
To: Ole Okie
He was Sac Fox..and and his mom was part Potawatomi. I am related to some Vieux's....which was his mom's maiden name.
My great, great, great, grandfather was Alexander Peter Nadeau..and married a Vieux. They were both Potawatomi's
116
posted on
08/22/2012 12:18:00 PM PDT
by
Osage Orange
("Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.")
To: TexasFreeper2009
Illogical. Profanity is not equivalent to indecent exposure or assault.
117
posted on
08/23/2012 7:44:14 AM PDT
by
Altariel
("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
To: TexasFreeper2009
Absolutely, Comrade. This senior must learn to obey The State.
The State salutes you for supporting its power grab!
118
posted on
08/23/2012 7:45:42 AM PDT
by
Altariel
("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-118 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson