Replies

From an article about the issue: After Brownback's office contacted the school about the tweet, Sullivan was called into the principal's office and reprimanded. The principal "laid into me about how this was unacceptable and an embarrassment," she told the Wichita Eagle. "He said I had created this huge controversy and everyone was up in arms about it … and now he had to do damage control." So basically the principle of the school brought her into his office because of a tweet and reprimanded her. How is that not a violation of free speech? If you say "You suck" about Obama and someone that is employed by the government (and has some authority over you)reprimands you over it and demands an apology, how would you spin it? And, yes, the First Admendment does cover boorish behavior. If the speech is not threatening, or patently offensive, then one can say anything he or she darn well likes. It's much better than the alternative. What would you rather have? The occasional boorish person with a lack of respect? (and really. What respect should any government offical have? Their lives should be miserable from the time they take the oath until they livea office) Or government minders giving real or veiled threats for saying the wrong thing about a politician? I might not agree with this young lady, but I do support her. (I may not agree with you, but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it) By the way: She has refused to apologize, and the school has dropped the matter.