click for article
The ACLU proved with this one that they're all for freedom of speech unless it's the freedom to worship God. I'm a little amazed that the ACLU would do something so blatantly left-wing and against what the supposedly believe in just to stop what they don't support, I guess I gave the fools more credit then they deserve.
The ACLU is a bunch of crooked wannabe lawyers. Nothing more, nothing less.
I do remember something they did maybe a year or so ago I agree with, but cant remember what it was.
This is a toughie, but can be solved with common sense.
Is the Valedictorian's speech considered the opinion of the school, or his/her own beliefs?
If it is considered a stance of the school (which would explain the editing beforehand), then the school IMHO acted correctly, espeically if they are expected to be impartial for/against ALL religions. Also, i think that expecting a commencement speech by a school student WOULDN'T be considered a stance of the school. So, the school would be in error here.
If the speech is considered the opinion of the student giving it, then yes, it's a violation of free speech. But, along the same token, if a valedictorian who's a satanist does the same thing then there should be no complaints about their speech
.
Personally, I think the school's stance should be outlined better--since the artlce doesn't say so. If the Valedictorian is considered an agent of the school, then no, she shouldn't have brought her beliefs into it. If she's considered independent of the school then she has the right to.
The common sense thing to do would be to say that her speech is hwer own and doesn't reflect the belief of the school, and make a disclaimer in the program that they hand out to....EVERYBODY. After all, she has the right to speak, and we have the right to not listen
.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Tha ACLU is a bunch of glory whore ass hats that should be ignored at all cost.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
I personally like the ACLU, overall.
You may not like who they represent or the trial material, but it's always about sticking to the constitution no matter how vile the situation is. If you doa wikipedia search, you'll find the ACLU helping lots of people none of us would like (such as NAMBLA, the man-boy love association). But it's always about stopping prosecutors and government from establishing currently illegal precendents in situations where the public may be on their side, simply because the defendant is so disliked.
---
AGuSTiN wrote:I personally like the ACLU, overall.
You may not like who they represent or the trial material, but it's always about sticking to the constitution no matter how vile the situation is. If you doa wikipedia search, you'll find the ACLU helping lots of people none of us would like (such as NAMBLA, the man-boy love association). But it's always about stopping prosecutors and government from establishing currently illegal precendents in situations where the public may be on their side, simply because the defendant is so disliked.
Free speech is part of the first amendment to the constitution. Where is this girls free speech? I found this article on the ACLU website
here, it's about them fighting for students who wanted to have a anti-war rally in their school. Here's one paragraph that I think is pretty interesting, given the ACLU's stance on the current situation:
Quote:
"The California Legislature and the U.S. Supreme Court have recognized that high schools are important forums for free speech and political debate," said Julia Harumi Mass, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. "As students prepare to participate as full citizens in society, schools should encourage independent thought and dialogue about current events, even controversial ones. School administrators certainly cannot silence students because they disagree with the students' message, which is what happened here."
They certainly will fight for the free speech rights of students in certain situations, just not all.
zero wrote:AGuSTiN wrote:I personally like the ACLU, overall.
You may not like who they represent or the trial material, but it's always about sticking to the constitution no matter how vile the situation is. If you doa wikipedia search, you'll find the ACLU helping lots of people none of us would like (such as NAMBLA, the man-boy love association). But it's always about stopping prosecutors and government from establishing currently illegal precendents in situations where the public may be on their side, simply because the defendant is so disliked.
Free speech is part of the first amendment to the constitution. Where is this girls free speech? I found this article on the ACLU website here, it's about them fighting for students who wanted to have a anti-war rally in their school. Here's one paragraph that I think is pretty interesting, given the ACLU's stance on the current situation:
Quote:
"The California Legislature and the U.S. Supreme Court have recognized that high schools are important forums for free speech and political debate," said Julia Harumi Mass, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. "As students prepare to participate as full citizens in society, schools should encourage independent thought and dialogue about current events, even controversial ones. School administrators certainly cannot silence students because they disagree with the students' message, which is what happened here."
They certainly will fight for the free speech rights of students in certain situations, just not all.
I'm not specifically talking about this case. I'm talking overall. If you want my take on this particular matter, I found that I'd side with the girl. The girl is not an employee of the government (the school), and my belief is only the government itself should be restricted. The separation of church and state was widened too far if bright, highly achieving kids are being censored.
---
Doesn't ACLU stand for "Anti Christian Liberties Union"?
Smile, Jesus loves you!!!!! <><
Manchild-ProPain, out now, Sphereofhiphop.com
I look at it like this:
The Valedictorian is not elected, and when they give their speech, it's meant to represent the student body.
IF the speech is not representative of the student body, then the address should be contextualised. Like it or not, the school has a liability factor in this, and if you're going to get pissant about the litigiousness of the nation as a whole, then, you should be THANKING the school for not giving anyone that got offended a bit of purchase to push through a lawsuit.
Personally, I don't think that religion belongs in schools because it's a PERSONAL issue, but what does my secular apostate brain know about keeping something personal actually PERSONAL.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
^^^welcome to america, where it's freedom for all the people unless someone else thinks you're wrong.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Free speech for the dumb?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I look at it like this:
The Valedictorian is not elected, and when they give their speech, it's meant to represent the student body.
It's not elected, but it's not selected, either. It's an earned prize, is it not? You're the baddest, bestest book turner in the whole damn school.
---
If you could cheat to a 4.0+ for four years, you're probably even a bigger genius than someone who did it right. Hah
---
AGuSTiN wrote:GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I look at it like this:
The Valedictorian is not elected, and when they give their speech, it's meant to represent the student body.
It's not elected, but it's not selected, either. It's an earned prize, is it not? You're the baddest, bestest book turner in the whole damn school.
When I graduated, it wasn't for best GPA, it was for overall contribution to the school and student body. Basically, every year that I was in HS, the one with the highest GPA was also the most painfully introverted and anti-social person there... It was decided by committee (teachers, Principal & VP and students council).
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
Personally, I don't think that religion belongs in schools because it's a PERSONAL issue, but what does my secular apostate brain know about keeping something personal actually PERSONAL.
I will agree that religion should not be in school(well with the obvious exception of not standing in the way of someone's beliefs - like if they want to pray at certain times, read their holy book in study hall, fast etc). However I don't think that Atheism should have any place in schools either. Atheism IS TAUGHT in schools. I mean objecting to language calling evolution a theory - IT IS A @!#$ING THEORY. Yes, it is only a scientific theory - by the very definition of a scientific theory. How does saying that that promote any particular religion/belief, or religion in general for that matter? It's not like any particular religion is proven anyways.
However refusing to admit that it is a theory rather than a fact - that does promote one particular belief structure - Atheism. I don't hear anyone bitching about the "
theory of relativity." By all means I think evolution should be taught in schools - but only in the context of what it is - theory.
Funny thing is - there are Christian scientists, and many scientists consider them a joke - but why? Well many Christian scientists are trying to collect only the evidence which could help to prove what they believe to be true and downplaying/discounting any evidence that does not support their views. And while that is a valid criticism, it is one that can be shared with Atheist scientists. Many of them are doing exactly the same thing - trying to collect only the evidence which could help to prove what they believe to be true and downplaying/discounting any evidence that does not support their views. That is bad science on both fronts. Real science does not involve trying to prove/disprove anything especially one specific point of view. Rather, real science involves studying the unknown, working to find the answers for which we do not know(or pretend to know). In real science, nothing is true aka fact unless it is proven. All possibilities must be considered potential truths until - either they are proven to be impossible, or another possibility is proven to be correct(which would disqualify the other possibilities).
The main problems with both those trying to prove a God-less universe, and those trying to prove God's creation is - their egos and their perception. They are not looking for the truth as much as they are trying to prove that they are right and the other's are wrong. They will not let little things like "the truth" get in their way. That is of course quite contradictory to any true science.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
You have the right to free speach, but not when someone else is paying the bill. If this kid wanted to stand on the sidewalk (public property) and preach gospel that is her right, but at a school sponsored function the school is well within their rights to limit content.
If this was a corporation instead of a school, the CEO could edit speakers based on his/her own discretion. I don't see this as any different.
.
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
Again, it needs to be defined:
Are the speakers at graduation--including the Valedictorian and Saludatorian, considered Agents of the school, or are they considered independent individuals?
This NEEDS to be defined on order to answer this. If the Valedictorian was an independent, then she could have preached to her heart's content, and lijkewize would be subject to the audiences reaction and she and only she would bear the brunt of consequences (ain't freedom a bitch?). If she was an agent of the school then yes, the school was right.
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
[quote=Keeper of the Light™]Again, it needs to be defined:
Are the speakers at graduation--including the Valedictorian and Saludatorian, considered Agents of the school, or are they considered independent individuals?
Because they are invited by the school to speak, I would say they are required to conform to the school's standards.
If this was the reception hall for your wedding and you invited guest speakers, you would want to know that they aren't going to say things that will offend your family and friends. And because you're paying for the hall, you are well within your rights to regulate what gets said.
.
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
[quote=Keeper of the Light™]Again, it needs to be defined:
Are the speakers at graduation--including the Valedictorian and Saludatorian, considered Agents of the school, or are they considered independent individuals?
This NEEDS to be defined on order to answer this. If the Valedictorian was an independent, then she could have preached to her heart's content, and lijkewize would be subject to the audiences reaction and she and only she would bear the brunt of consequences (ain't freedom a bitch?). If she was an agent of the school then yes, the school was right.
You're absolutely right. This is exactly what it boils down to.
Because of this, I guess the way the school asked her to speak would be the defining piece of the puzzle. Did they say, "We would like you to represent your school at graduation with a speech" or ........?
---
The ACLU will fight tooth and nail for the little queer boy who wants to where a prom dress to his graduation and they will sue the pants off you if you dare mention the word GOD in a public school or in a court room anymore.
So why does the little queer boy get more rights then someone who believes in God ? Why does this girls rights get trampled on siting school policy but the queer boy should be allowed to where a dress that violates his schools policy ? Hmmm, this seems to be a bit of a double standard now doesn't it ? Little boy in drag, violates school policy but is a violation of his rights and the ACLU will sue. Little girl dares mention the "G" word, again violates school policy but this time the policy of shutting someone up is the correct policy.
So lets see as long as you belong to the pet cause of the moment like homosexuality then your golden, BUT if you are part of the unfavored majority that believes in God then you can go pound sand because after all how dare you offend 1 or maybe 2 people that don't believe in God !
Once again further proof that the ACLU is a bunch of liberal ass hats who unless you do things there way you can't do them at all !
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
John Wilken wrote:[quote=Keeper of the Light™]Again, it needs to be defined:
Are the speakers at graduation--including the Valedictorian and Saludatorian, considered Agents of the school, or are they considered independent individuals?
Because they are invited by the school to speak, I would say they are required to conform to the school's standards.
If this was the reception hall for your wedding and you invited guest speakers, you would want to know that they aren't going to say things that will offend your family and friends. And because you're paying for the hall, you are well within your rights to regulate what gets said.
.
Those aren't good analogies in this case, because the government has to abide by separate standards when hiring, firing and educating than those of private institutions.
---
Jackalope wrote:The ACLU will fight tooth and nail for the little queer boy who wants to where a prom dress to his graduation and they will sue the pants off you if you dare mention the word GOD in a public school or in a court room anymore.
So why does the little queer boy get more rights then someone who believes in God ? Why does this girls rights get trampled on siting school policy but the queer boy should be allowed to where a dress that violates his schools policy ? Hmmm, this seems to be a bit of a double standard now doesn't it ? Little boy in drag, violates school policy but is a violation of his rights and the ACLU will sue. Little girl dares mention the "G" word, again violates school policy but this time the policy of shutting someone up is the correct policy.
So lets see as long as you belong to the pet cause of the moment like homosexuality then your golden, BUT if you are part of the unfavored majority that believes in God then you can go pound sand because after all how dare you offend 1 or maybe 2 people that don't believe in God !
Once again further proof that the ACLU is a bunch of liberal ass hats who unless you do things there way you can't do them at all !
You have no idea what you're talking about. Everytime I see the word "liberal" in one of your posts (or anyone's), it's an easy target because it's always emotional, never logical.
From the ACLU's own website....
Quote:
In all of these documents, the ACLU has a consistent message. Every student group -- even ones the school does not wish to sponsor -- has a right to meet and speak on campus when the school has created a forum for such clubs. But no student group has a right to force a school to give it official sponsorship or money against the school's wishes or in violation of the school's legal duties.
Further, while I couldn't find any specific cases of the ACLU defending male students who want to dress like girls, it wouldn't surprise me. Gender and Gay Rights are part of the ACLU's mission. If a guy wants to where what the girls are wearing, so what? You're afraid your teenager boy is going to get confused or what?
---
AGuSTiN wrote:
Those aren't good analogies in this case, because the government has to abide by separate standards when hiring, firing and educating than those of private institutions.
As I pay city and state taxes, I am a partial-owner of the school system. Because I pay for those institutions, I expect a certain level of decorum to be followed. If the school does something that offends me, I will not vote for the next school levy.
Therefore, it is the responsibility of the school admin to control what happens during school sponsored events, as it directly effects their future earnings.
I wouldn't be offended by the mention of God during a commencement speech, but if the principal was yelling "F*#$ those guys up" during a football game, I would see that as setting the wrong example for my children and remember that at levy time.
.
John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto
Your missing my point AGuSTiN. If the ACLU is willing to fight for and back up a male gender bender who is in violation of school policy because its his right to dress as he sees fit then they should as strongly defend this girls right to say as she wants. Both cases break school policy and challange the students rights to free speech so I'll ask again, why is the boy in drag intitled to more freedom of speech then this girl when both violate school policy ?
And I could care less what he / she / it wants to where. But it goes both ways AGuSTiN, are you afraid of hearing someone speek of God ?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edited Tuesday, June 27, 2006 10:17 AM
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
