Civil Rights Censored

[debby]

I saw this on the news yesterday, it angered me that a school would call the ACLU, just so they would not get a law suit from them about this young lady's speech. They should be fighting for her free speech not against it. If people don't want to hear her speech they can leave or cover their ears, which ever makes them happy. She had the right to say what ever she wanted as an American citizen. And a young lady who had worked hard for her 4.7 gpa.



ACLU Says Pulling The Plug On Free Speech Was The Right Call

by Jay on 06-18-06 @ 5:13 pm Filed under ACLU (http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/category/aclu/), 1st Amendment (http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/category/1st-amendment/), News (http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/category/news/)
Bumped up from the weekend.
The valedictorian of Foothill High, Brittany McComb, decided to share her faith voluntarily at her graduation ceremony. However, before she could get to the part that meant the most to her, Christ, her microphone went dead. Her speech was in no way endorsed by her school, however the school directly participated in censoring her free speech.
The First Amendment: (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The judicial branch has extended the meaning of this amendment to any government body, not just Congress. However, I still don’t understand how so many ignore the part that says ” or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This is exactly what the school did to this young girl (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-17-Sat-2006/news/8014416.html), prohibited the free exercise of her religious expression.
The decision to cut short McComb’s commencement speech Thursday at The Orleans drew jeers from the nearly 400 graduates and their families that went on for several minutes.
However, Clark County School District officials and an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that cutting McComb’s mic was the right call. Graduation ceremonies are school-sponsored events, a stance supported by federal court rulings, and as such may include religious references but not proselytizing, they said.
They said McComb’s speech amounted to proselytizing and that her commentary could have been perceived as school-sponsored.
Before she delivered her commencement speech, McComb met with Foothill administrators, who edited her remarks. It’s standard district practice to have graduation speeches vetted before they are read publicly.
School officials removed from McComb’s speech some biblical references and the only reference to Christ.
It is shameful that the ACLU take such a backwards stance on this issue. The school obviously didn’t endorse the speech, so therefore they prohibited it, and acted upon it by censoring her.
But even though administrators warned McComb that her speech would get cut short if she deviated from the language approved by the school, she said it all boiled down to her fundamental right to free speech.
That’s why, for what she said was the first time in her life, the valedictorian who graduated with a 4.7 GPA rebelled against authority.
“I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech,” McComb said. “God’s the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior.” source (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-17-Sat-2006/news/8014416.html)
The ACLU lawyer said that it could have given the perception that the speech was school endorsed. However, the school could have put out a disclaimer. The ACLU said that her speech crossed the line from religious expression into the realm of preaching. I guess if anyone knows what kind of religious expression could cause a lawsuit, it would be the ACLU since they would most likely be the ones sueing. This girl was smart and brave, but her school was rude and cowardly.
“People aren’t stupid and they know we have freedom of speech and the district wasn’t advocating my ideas,” McComb said. “Those are my opinions.
“It’s what I believe.”
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/06/18/aclu-says-pulling-the-plug-on-free-speech-was-the-right-call/

[jowlar]

Although I don't agree with the school official decision, I think that they erred on the side of caution. Just having to defend themselves against a lawsuit, even one which they were right, would cost the school and take money out of the classroom.

[leagle]

I saw this on the news yesterday, it angered me that a school would call the ACLU, just so they would not get a law suit from them about this young lady's speech. They should be fighting for her free speech not against it. If people don't want to hear her speech they can leave or cover their ears, which ever makes them happy. She had the right to say what ever she wanted as an American citizen. And a young lady who had worked hard for her 4.7 gpa.

Do you read the sources cited in the blogs you post? The ACLU had no involvement in the matter at all. The school did not "call the ACLU", a reporter from the Las Vegas Review-Journal did a day after the speech to get an opinion for their story. (Although given that the blog posted is from a site called "Stop the ACLU.com", I can't say that I am surprised that they would fabricate the ACLU's involvement in the matter).

His quote:"There should be no controversy here," Lichtenstein said. "It's important for people to understand that a student was given a school-sponsored forum by a school and therefore, in essence, it was a school-sponsored speech." Lichtenstein said that position was supported by two decisions by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in 2000 and 2003. is a correct statement of the applicable legal precedent.

Since the school vetted her speech, people would reasonably expect that the school endorsed her words. The school district's lawyer explained it well: "We review the speeches and tell them they may not proselytize. We encourage people to talk about religion and the impact on their lives. But when that discussion crosses over to become proselytizing, then we to tell students they can't do that."

To put out a disclaimer after the fact completely ignores the point of vetting her speech before the ceremony.

And "cover their ears"?? Here’s a thought experiment: Replace the Bible with the Koran, replace Jesus with Mohammad and replace God with Allah. Do you still feel the same way?

[debby]

Unfortunately as an American those who believe in the Koran has been given freedom of speech in this country. And if an Arab had been giving that speech would not have been censored. Only Christians are being censored. Because People do no want to hear the name of Jesus. This country was started by people who believed in the Bible not the Koran. I do not see why we have to stop speaking about our Lord because of the ACLU or any other group. The constitution gives us freedom of speech and we are being robbed.
Yes I know the sources of my blogs.

[chrymalone]

I think she had a right to say whatever she felt led to say. This took away her "freedom of speech". She earned the right to say anything that she wanted to. This is crazy. I know at the graduation here our Valedictorian, which happened to be one of our youth... way to go Taylor :), said thanks to the Lord her God, and no one has said a word. Even if they had, she really would not have cared, b/c she earned the right to be there and say what she wanted to.

[mmcd3182]

[I][FONT=Palatino Linotype][SIZE=4][COLOR=darkorchid]Unfortunately as an American those who believe in the Koran has been given freedom of speech in this country. And if an Arab had been giving that speech would not have been censored.

Why would an Arab be allowed to make the speech? What does race have to do with it?

[BamaChE04]

She should have just kept the part about her faith out of the reviewed speech, and then added it at the end like she wanted. That way no one would have known ahead of time that it was going to happen, thus taking liability off the school and letting her share the message. Sad that Christians have to work that way, but unfortunately true in this world.

[phillip]

I would like to see a copy of this young womans speech and see exactly what she said that was and attempt to proselytize those in attendance. I was once also told that I would not be allowed to proselytize anyone, that was while I was stationed in the UAE otherwise known as the United Arab Emirates. At the time I was part of a U.S Military operation helping to defend Saudi Arabia. I will admit that they gave me a very nice metal for the job I did, but I still didn't get to proselytize anyone. Strange, I thought only repressive and closed nations forbade the free expression of though. I'm amazed that such a fine, upstanding, and freedom loving organization like the ACLU would agree with the decision of a repressive governmental agencies to deprive this young woman of one of the most basic right she has as a citizen of this nation. I mean, doesn't the First Amendment say that the government will not "prohibit the free expression thereof", regarding religion expression by and individual. I have traveled and lived in a number of foreign country's in my life and it has always been the free expression of thought, philosophy and faith, exercised in a reasonable manner, that in my opinion has always set us apart as a nation from so many of the places I've been.
As far as the comment made by leagle, about what if we replace the Bible with the koran, etc.. I think the answer should be a simple one. If another young woman of a different faith, was in the same position as the one this subject was about, and she wished to share what her faith had done for her what could possibly be wrong with that? The First Amendment should protects that freedom of expression as well.
Hey mmcd3182, keep trying you'll catch up one of these days.

[armypunk]

i dont understand why everyone's so quick to pick sides on a religious/political issue of any kind. why not try to understand the position of both sides of the arguing persons and acknowledge the rights and faults of them. people rarely listen to the views of an oposing person, they're too busy trying to express they're views of the situation.

[debby]

Why would an Arab be allowed to make the speech? What does race have to do with it?

We have Arab Americans that might want to give alalh the glory during a speech. Do you think that person's speech would be censored?
i dont understand why everyone's so quick to pick sides on a religious/political issue of any kind. why not try to understand the position of both sides of the arguing persons and acknowledge the rights and faults of them. people rarely listen to the views of an oposing person, they're too busy trying to express they're views of the situation.This is about rights given to us in the United States Consitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That young lady's rights were censored. You just typed your opinion. Would you like it if Dave deleted it?

[armypunk]

ya know, our entire social structure is based on the views and opinons of other people. it's never what is said is how it is viewed by a majority. and if the majority doesnt like what that young lady has to say then it wont be said. you can argue that point all u like, this is my opinion and your arguement will be your opinion. thats just the way it is. your not arguing facts your arguing to win the views of the majority.

[AngelWing]

i dont understand why everyone's so quick to pick sides on a religious/political issue of any kind. why not try to understand the position of both sides of the arguing persons and acknowledge the rights and faults of them. people rarely listen to the views of an oposing person, they're too busy trying to express they're views of the situation.


It would be a pretty dull world if everyone agreed completely on every single part of every issue in the world. That's why we have forums like this so we have a chance not to so much "argue" but to express why we think the way we do about different things.

I do think it was terribly wrong of the school to censor the girl's speech that she worked so hard to earn the right to say what she felt she needed to say. The ACLU has put the fear of lawsuits into schools now for every little issue and it's just plain ridiculous!

[dave]

Unfortunately as an American those who believe in the Koran has been given freedom of speech in this country. And if an Arab had been giving that speech would not have been censored. Only Christians are being censored.
Is there one case anywhere in the U.S. that can be cited where someone in a public school sponsored event was allowed to preach on the Koran, yet someone else was denied the opportunity to do so on the Bible? The point leagle was making (that got missed) is that the very folks that are truly upset over this would NOT have gotten upset if her message had been on Allah instead of Jesus. The decision would have been cheered as a good thing.

[demopolite]

Is there one case anywhere in the U.S. that can be cited where someone in a public school sponsored event was allowed to preach on the Koran, yet someone else was denied the opportunity to do so on the Bible?

Girl studying for bar says:

No. But if you could find one of those cases, it would be an "equal protection case." Freedom of speech is not absolute...for instance, you cannot go into a crowded theatre and yell "Fire!," even though technically such speech could fit within the bounds of the First Amendment. The government is, for instance, allowed to have time, place, and manner restrictions (e.g. you have to get a permit to have a march, or you can't have a rally in someone's front yard if that person doesn't want the rally there). There are also free speech zones that have different protections.

In this case, the girl's right to proselytize was not truly censored. She was given a forum by the government for the limited purpose of giving a graduation speech. From that position, she was (according to SCOTUS) in essence speaking for the government. Now, the government is not allowed to proselytize for any religion, or even for the existence or non-existence of God. Apparantly, this girl was TOLD that she was not allowed to proselytize, and yet did it anyway. She had no RIGHT to give a graduation speech...and high schoolers at high school functions don't necessarily have a RIGHT to freedom of speech. She was AFFORDED that OPPORTUNITY by the school if she kept her speech within certain parameters...and when she didn't, they cut her off.

I have a feeling that they would have done the same thing if she started talking about Allah, or Shiva, or oral sex, for that matter.
If the GOVERNMENT comes in and tells her that she cannot stand in a free speech zone and profess her faith, we have a free speech problem. Until then, the girl didn't "mind"... and paid the consequences, just as any other teenager would have.

Also, if the girl's free speech rights truly had been abridged by the school, the ACLU would have filed a suit on her behalf. The ACLU is not the godless, evil organization hellbent on destroying the US that many make them out to be. They protect the civil rights of anyone who is being oppressed by the government, whether the aethiests or the KKK.

[debby]

ya know, our entire social structure is based on the views and opinons of other people. it's never what is said is how it is viewed by a majority. and if the majority doesnt like what that young lady has to say then it wont be said. you can argue that point all u like, this is my opinion and your arguement will be your opinion. thats just the way it is. your not arguing facts your arguing to win the views of the majority.

All I'm saying is not everyone has first Amendment rights. Especially Christians.

[Wyldfire]

All I'm saying is not everyone has first Amendment rights. Especially Christians.

Why especially Christians??? I believe that every person should have the rights granted by the First Ammendment. No matter of race, ethnic group, religion, orientation, etc. No group should be given any greater need for this protection. I've been quiet about this whole ordeal, but the girl could have thanks God and her church family for helping her get to where she was, but at the point when she began prostelyzing is where she crossed the line. If God did infact play such an important role in her life, everyone that knew her would have known that. If she lived a life that mirrored Christs, her actions in the community and school would reflect it. She shouldn't have had to scream out from the rooftop "I am a Christian, and you should be too". There are times and places for everything! Just my opinion!

[debby]

I don't know exactly what was in the speech but have heard there was only one mention of the name of Jesus. Now I have a hard time believing you can convert a crowd of graduating seniors and their families. By thanking Jesus one time. But, she didn't get to say that they cut her off.

Brittany McComb, valedictorian of Foothill High School in Clark County, Nevada, stood up at her graduation and began to speak. A few paragraphs into her speech, school administrators cut off McComb's microphone.
She didn't tell a dirty joke. She didn't curse. She didn't insult her classmates or her teachers. Brittany McComb committed the egregious sin of attempting to thank God and Jesus. "I went through four years of school at Foothill and they taught me logic and they taught me freedom of speech," McComb stated. "God's the biggest part of my life. Just like other valedictorians thank their parents, I wanted to thank my lord and savior."
The American Civil Liberties Union, which seems more intent on curtailing important liberties than protecting them, praised the school's decision. Nevada ACLU general counsel Allan Lichtenstein explained, "There should be no controversy here … It's important for people to understand that a student was given a school-sponsored forum by a school, and therefore, in essence, it was a school-sponsored speech." The school district stood by the school's decision, suggesting that McComb's speech entered into the realm of "preaching." "We review the speeches and tell them they may not proselytize," said district legal counsel Bill Hoffman. "We encourage people to talk about religion and the impact on their lives. But when that discussion crosses over to become proselytizing, then we tell students they can't do that."
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/15512.html

[mmcd3182]

That young lady's rights were censored. You just typed your opinion. Would you like it if Dave deleted it?

rights can't be censored... speeches can be, and so can this post, and your post.

Hey mmcd3182, keep trying you'll catch up one of these days.

what am I trying to catch up with?

-----------

and about "everyone should have the right to free speech. Especially Christians" ... is being a little selfish. The country was founded on the idea that "all men are created equal," and every person (no matter what ethnicity, religion, gender, etc) should be equally entitled to the freedoms given by the Bill of Rights.

We'll never know if her speech was preaching or not until we can read it -- does anyone know where it is? If her speech was preaching, then this should have happened, but if she was just thanking someone who helped her along the way, whether it was Jesus, her parents, or her imaginery friend Lulu... then no, she shouldn't have been cut off.

[0ldman]

Anyone have a link to the actual speach?

[mmcd3182]

I haven't been able to find a copy of the speech, but this report differs from the one previously posted. It says that her speech contained several Bible verse references (may or may not be preaching -- people use quotes all the time in grad speeches), it contained several references to "the Lord", and one single reference to "Jesus." But she does have legal representation from the Rutherford Institute: (I underlined/bolded one small section of it that seemed to be the most important)



6/22/2006
Nisha N. Mohammed
Rutherford Institute to Defend Brittany McComb, Sue Nevada High School for Pulling the Plug on Christian References in Valedictorian's Speech
HENDERSON, Nev. - Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have agreed to represent a high school senior whose microphone was unplugged by school officials after she began to speak about her Christian beliefs during her valedictory address. When Foothill High School valedictorian Brittany McComb began reading a speech that contained Bible verses and references to God and her faith in Jesus Christ during her commencement speech on June 15, 2006, officials with the Clark County School District unplugged the microphone. Institute attorneys plan to file a First Amendment lawsuit against the school district for having violated Brittany's constitutional right to free speech and equal protection under the law.

"This is yet another example of a politically correct culture silencing Christians in order to not offend those of other beliefs," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Brittany McComb worked hard to earn the right to address her classmates as valedictorian and she has a constitutional right-like any other student-to freely speak about the factors that contributed to her success, whether they be a supportive family, friends or her faith in Jesus Christ."

This past spring, graduating senior Brittany McComb was chosen to give the valedictory speech at Foothill High School in Henderson, Nevada. After composing her remarks, she submitted them to school administrators according to standard district policy. School administrators, upon the advice of their district legal counsel, proceeded to censor her speech, deleting all three Bible references, several references to "the Lord" and the only mention of the word "Christ." However, according to the official religious free speech policy of the Clark County School Board, "Where students or other private graduation speakers are selected on the basis of genuinely neutral, evenhanded criteria and retain primary control over the content of their expression...that expression is not attributable to the school and, therefore, may not be restricted because of its religious (or anti-religious) content."

On Thursday, June 15, 2006, Brittany, who graduated with a 4.7 GPA, prepared to deliver her commencement address to her fellow students, families and staff. Believing that the district's censorship of her speech amounted to a violation of her right to free speech, she proceeded to share her personal beliefs about the role that her Christian beliefs played in her success. When school officials found her to be straying from the approved text, they unplugged her microphone, fearing that her remarks could be construed as a school endorsement of her Christian views, despite the "appropriate, neutral disclaimers" provision of the religious speech policy.
Brittany claims that she was not preaching or proselytizing but merely stating her thoughts and beliefs upon graduation, as she was invited to do.

Rutherford Institute attorneys plan to file suit in federal district court in defense of Brittany's First Amendment right to free speech and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law.

---
From: http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=621

[debby]

I don't think the entire text of the speech has been released to the press. I wouldn't if I were her either. Not till her law suit is over.
Thanks for that information mmcd. I'm so glad someone is interested in this case for her. I hate seeing peoples rights being run over without some kind of restitution.
Oh and I ask Phillip why he put that in there and he said he was encouraging you.
I do not think we are being selfish mmcd by wanting our First Amendment right. We have first amendment rights and we deserve them as well as anyone else. Just because we are talking about our Savior does not make us less of an American.

[mmcd3182]

I do not think we are being selfish mmcd by wanting our First Amendment right. We have first amendment rights and we deserve them as well as anyone else. Just because we are talking about our Savior does not make us less of an American. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/I]


Then I must have misunderstood you. Because when you said "especially christians" it sounded like you meant that a Christian should be more entitled to free speech than anyone else-- atheist or agnostic or a satanist-- and I just had to say that I didn't believe that was true.

[dillybar]

Shame on whoever unplugged her!

[debby]

Then I must have misunderstood you. Because when you said "especially christians" it sounded like you meant that a Christian should be more entitled to free speech than anyone else-- atheist or agnostic or a satanist-- and I just had to say that I didn't believe that was true.
Christians are the only ones being censored. Have you heard of an athesist or agnostice or satanist being censored? I have not! These are usually the people trying to shut us up. Because they are offened.
No I did not mean that we Christians are more entitled than anyone else. I mean we do have first amendment rights. Where did you get that? "especially Christians" I dont see anywhere I said that?

[leagle]

All I'm saying is not everyone has first Amendment rights. Especially Christians.

I must have misunderstood too.

[Wyldfire]

I must have misunderstood too.

Me Three....