TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote:http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... 915c035130

According to this article it was the school that broke the rules, and the principal wanted to torpedo the kid's nomination to the Naval Academy in retribution. Here's the speech:

“We are all fortunate to live in a country where we can express our beliefs, where our mics won’t be turned off, as I have been threatened to be if I veer away from the school-censored speech I have just finished,” he said according to the Star. “Just as Jesus spoke out against the authority of the Pharisees and Sadducees, who tried to silence him, I will not have my freedom of speech taken away from me. And I urge you all to do the same. Do not let anyone take away your religious or Constitutional rights from you.”

But Sasser said the school district violated state and federal laws by censoring Reimer’s speech. He said the law, along with local school policy, requires the school to distance itself from the valedictorian’s speech. That means not editing or drafting the speech.

The school was also required to publish a message in the graduation program that read in part, “the content of each student-speaker’s message is the private expression of the individual student and does not reflect the endorsement, sponsorship, position or expression of the District.”

Sasser said contrary to the law and its own policies the Joshua Independent School District failed to include the disclaimer and not only edited – but tried to control Reimer’s speech.

Darn, you beat me to the point. I heard today that some alphabet groups are formulating their legal challenge. In the same report, it is alleged that the principle made threats to send letters to the Naval academy and will try to "punish" him for what he said. The question was raised was it what he said or that he violated the schools unconstitutional policy.

E.Marquez wrote: Well as the two events are about as far apart as possible.. I don't see that what she thought about her life and defining event would have any converging points at all on what a Highschool student who was given specific legal, moral, and ethical instructions for a speaking part in a school event.. Said Student was told the proper path to being able to say what he wanted in the address and was told in advance what would happen if he FAILED to follow those legal, moral and ethical instructions.

If he was not a dishonest person, he would have given the school the speech version he intended to make in advance as required.. But he want to pretend the rules did not apply and make a statement..
I find his actions dishonest and deceitful.

Now if he comes forward and proves he was forbidden from submitting the intended speech, or it was submitted and denied, edited, censored.. that would be different. But the info available at this point shows he simply choose to ignore the guidance and rules laid out for him..

Agreed, they are very far apart but not the concept; exactly the same. Rosa was told the exact same thing about the rules. She was told what bus and where to sit on the bus and was even warned multiple times. She stood up to the rules that, in the time, was very much not in her favor.

Let's take this to the simplest form possible.

Rules present
Rules told to person
Person stands up to rule


My point is that if everyone were to just sit down and shut up because of the rules (harsh but this is your point) or they were told it's against the rules, we would not be where we are today. It takes people to stand up to those rules. I think, you think that, I think we differ that I think he should have been allowed to do this at school and you don't. IMHO, I have always thought that if you subject your children to public school, then you suffer the outcome and censorship.

Am I correct that you are saying your only problem with this is that it happened in a high school? What about college? Or, some other pre-approved speaking arrangement. I've seen it and heard it at the Academy awards, CMT awards and all those other places. Is it okay here or no because there are rules set ahead of time?

E.Marquez wrote:Ahh, sorry.. to me it reads as a student that figured the rules, clearly presented in advance of the event did not apply to him.

He got a good life lesson, now perhaps he will better understand that the laws and rules presented to him apply.. He may choose to violate them, but personal responsibility will require that he accept the consequences.

I wonder if Rosa ever thought this way. Just because there are laws, doesn't mean people shouldn't stand up to them.

Do you agree or not?

The student did veer off of the approved script and was warned ahead of time. Is this censorship? Is it okay since you are in a public school.

I find it ironic that he was talking about free speech and was shut down.

The Joshua High School valedictorian veered off his prepared speech and talked about freedom of speech when administrators turned off his microphone during Thursday night's graduation ceremony.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/High-S ... 32391.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;