School withholds valedictorian’s diploma for saying “hell”

KFOR-TV ^ | August 18, 2012 | La'Tasha Givens

[SUSSA]

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.

[Osage Orange]

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!!

[Osage Orange]

I’d guess the “foul-mouthed brat” is a hell of lot smarter than you.....

[Osage Orange]

It’s pretty f’n easy, really.

Guess you don't consider FReeper's "polite company".

HAHA!!

[Osage Orange]

Deliberately misleading the school with the text she submitted before the speech particularly egregious

And you know this how?

[Osage Orange]

Jim Thorpe was a relative of mine...

[Osage Orange]

How 'bout this.....

You are bitching too much.

Is that proper context?

[Osage Orange]

LOL!!

Exactly!!..if this was MA, NY, or CT. But this is OK......

[verga]

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

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.

[TexasFreeper2009]

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.

[TexasFreeper2009]

in many cities the use of profanities is also a crime.

[SUSSA]

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 shouldn’t 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 wouldn’t 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. It’s your job to decide what they read and what they watch. It isn’t up to the government to dictate what your kids may read or watch.

[verga]

I will save my breath since it is very clear that you only intent is to completely misunderstand. Good luck.

[verga]

I will save my breath since it is very clear that you only intent is to completely misunderstand. Good luck.

[Ole Okie]

Jim Thorpe was a relative of mine...

No kidding? Jim still needs to have his Olympic medals restored to him.

[Osage Orange]

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

[Altariel]

Illogical. Profanity is not equivalent to indecent exposure or assault.

[Altariel]

Absolutely, Comrade. This senior must learn to obey The State.

The State salutes you for supporting its power grab!