McComb Speech Shows Idiocy of ACLU and Public Schools

Why Does Free Speech Exclude Religion?

from JoeUser Forums
From Review Journal.com - Italics Mine - prying1 -

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.

At least the students knew cutting off the mic was wrong. They did not teach that out of them!

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.

Because they say it is does not make it so!

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.

And who decides which is which?

They said McComb's speech amounted to proselytizing and that her commentary could have been perceived as school-sponsored.

Was the ACLU afraid that the Spirit of God was going to fall and everyone was going to jump up yammering in other tongues?

Before she delivered her commencement speech, McComb met with Foothill administrators, who edited her remarks.

So who's speech is it then?

It's standard district practice to have graduation speeches vetted before they are read publicly.

This is a good idea in case a valedictorian decides to use cursing and swearing in their speech. As if they would.



prying1 sez: This is typical of the left in America. What gets me is many of the 'free speech advocate' leftist bloggers think it was the right thing to do.

Anyone have a link to the speech itself I (and others of course) would appreciate a pointer to it.

~~~~~
Technorati Tags -
ACLU -
Free Speech -
Brittany McComb -
2,178 views 11 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
The ACLU got it WAY WRONG on this one. McComb's speech fell under her first amendment rights, and, in fact, the policy of the Clark County School District affirms her right to speak, because she is not a representative of the school. Liberals would have you believe that school district officials would have acted the same if McComb was a Scientologist, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or other nonChristian faith, she would have been treated the same, but they cannot show evidence of that fact, and, in fact, school districts have been teaching philosophies of these other faiths in the classroom for years unchallenged.

There's a simple solution to all of this, of course: Pull your kid out and accept responsibility for their education yourself. They'll be better taught, and the school districts would have to make radical changes if their enrollments were consistently dropping.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
McComb's speech fell under her first amendment rights,


Is she legally an adult?

I don't think it made any difference what she said that deviated from the pre-approved speech. She could have talked about her pet, and if it wasn't approved they had the right to cut her off.
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yep, typical left thinking. Freedom of speech unless it's something they disagree with.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't think it made any difference what she said that deviated from the pre-approved speech. She could have talked about her pet, and if it wasn't approved they had the right to cut her off.


I find it highly ironic that in a city where children are exposed to bare titties everytime they hit the strip or Fremont street, the word "God" should be so offensive. Keep making your temples of secular humanism into anti-free speech zones, icono, and watch everyone with common sense defect as soon as they realize that private and homeschools can do a better job.

I'm not sure whether Ms. McCombs had passed the arbitrary age of 18 that you deem necessary for her to have her "inalienable" rights bestowed upon her by the benificent and mysterious order of the government (of, by and for the people my ASS), but if not, then her parents, not the school board, should be the arbiters of what is and is not within her rights to say.

The fact is, no matter how you want to try to get around it, icono, the school board violated its own policy. Ms. McCombs followed what, to her, is a higher law, and she should be applauded for it. While the school board has the right to censor anything they deem inappropriate, perhaps it would be best for them to do away with commencement speeches altogether. Someone *might* be offended.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ms. McCombs followed what, to her, is a higher law, and she should be applauded for it.


So she should get immunity just because she's religious?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
So she should get immunity just because she's religious?


Immunity from exercising free speech? No, Icono, she should be allowed to EXERCISE free speech. What part of "inalienable" do you not understand?

Before you unjustly accuse me of any sort of double standard, please note you will find in my archives an article arguing for the Wiccan symbol to be placed on the grave of Sgt. Patrick Stewart. Freedom of religion, and speech, are rights which I do not feel ANY government has the right to stifle.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
You're not an iconoclast, icono. You're an out and out religiophobe. I don't know what caused your irrational fear of religion, but you need to learn to deal with the fact that others in this country not only have faith, but have the God given freedom to exercise it. And no edict you or your goons can ever proclaim can stop that!
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Immunity from exercising free speech?


No, immunity from following the rules.

I doubt any talk of Satan would have been allowed either.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks all for the comments and debate - Personally I do not think that her age should have entered into the arguement. She is still a citizen and it was her speech not the school officials. - Other than calling for open rebellion, lawbreaking or foul language the speech should have been left alone. .

re: Gideon's line - "you will find in my archives an article arguing for the Wiccan symbol to be placed on the grave of Sgt. Patrick Stewart. Freedom of religion, and speech, are rights which I do not feel ANY government has the right to stifle."

I agree 100% - Plus it will help the final arbiter in sorting every one out.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I doubt any talk of Satan would have been allowed either.


Satanism, as opposed to the numerous other religions, is a religion that has NEVER been a force for good in ANY society. I am sure the other faiths I mentioned would have been allowed, though.

But here's the point, icono. When you religiophobes insist on making a political issue out of a commencement speech, you pretty much lose the supporters you would have had otherwise. If you're tired of hearing it, you can tune it out, just as religious conservatives have to tune out the inane intolerant drivel from bigots like you. To censor it, though, while demanding your platform for free speech be maintained, is the epitome of hypocrisy.

A student who is graduating is hitting a major milestone in their life. They are speaking to inspire and encourage their fellow graduates. Their philosophy on life is completely relevant to the topic, and should be part of the speech. You show me one Satanist valedictorian and I will certainly defend their right to pronounce their religion in their speech, as they've certainly earned the right to speak. Trouble is, most Satanists are stoned out losers who barely earn the credits to graduate if they don't drop out of high school altogether, eschewing formal education.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
When did the word "GOD" turn into an anathema?

She earned the right to speak her mind, she worked hard for 4 years to become a valedictorian, her reward? cut her off at the knees.