The article doesn't give enough information for me to comment on the case, as it doesn't give the context of the proposed speech. Was he the validictorian? I know they usually give speeches, and sometimes salutitorians.
I can tell you that the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to have a forum in which to speak. I don't have the right to go to your church and try to preach during the service, I am sure you would agree. Similarly, neither you nor I have the right to force the New York Times to carry one of our essays on the Op-Ed page.
If other students were speaking publicly about their religion, then that student had the right to speak about his religion. Otherwise, I fail to see what legitimate school purpose giving one student a forum would have entailed. But if he were the validictorian, I don't think his speech should have been censored. Even if he were advocating burning the flag. Exception made for obscenities, however.
* * * EXCERPT FROM: ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA 515 U.S. ___ 94329
Though our Establishment Clause jurisprudence is in hopeless disarray, this case provides an opportunity to reaffirm one basic principle that has enjoyed an uncharacteristic degree of consensus: The Clause does not compel the exclusion of religious groups from government benefits programs that are generally available to a broad class of participants. See Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. ___ (1993); Zobrest, supra; Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990); Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989); Witters v. Washington Dept. of Services for Blind, 474 [Page 11] U.S. 481 (1986); Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983); Widmar, supra. *** |
