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.