Principal threatens valedictorian

[LDB]

School principal threatens to malign valedictorian to ruin his Naval Academy appointment. What a fine example that principal is.

Remington Reimer, Texas HS Valedictorian, Facing Shocking Retaliation for Unapproved Speech | Fox News Insider

 

[letzrockexpress]

School principal threatens to malign valedictorian to ruin his Naval Academy appointment. What a fine example that principal is.

Remington Reimer, Texas HS Valedictorian, Facing Shocking Retaliation for Unapproved Speech | Fox News Insider

Yeah that is pretty ridiculous. the kid was merely demonstrating his freedom of speech. The principal seems a little paranoid to me and I doubt he really could have had any influence one way or the other on a Naval Academy appointment that was already secured unless a crime had been committed...

 

[layoutshooter]

Just ANOTHER public "servant" who is out of control. Seems to be the nature of the beast these days. They have forgotten just who they work for. They have become arrogant. We need to rein them all in, starting with the president and the congress. Just fire that principle. No excuse for him to act this way.

 

[Turtle]

The principal is clearly out of control, if the student agreed to the approved speech and then deviated from it, letter or no letter, that could prevent his appointment from going through.

 

[layoutshooter]

References to God or the Constitution should NEVER be "forbidden" by a school system when "approving" a speech. That flies in the face of everything this Nation is based on.

Again, public servants are clearly, and totally, out of control.

What amazes me, and gives me hope, is that there seems to be a number of young people willing to stand up to these academic thugs and exercise their Constitutional Rights. Too bad there are not more adults taking a stand and putting a stop to these unconstitutional actions taken by public employees.

 

[RoadTime]

Not surprised, especially when the governor needed to sign a bill so you can say Merry Christmas in school with out fear of legal recourse

Texas gov. signs 'Merry Christmas' bill into law

 

[cheri1122]

If the kid departed from his approved speech to praise communism, or unions, or gun control, would y'all be applauding his action & defending his freedom of speech?
I think you'd be pointing to it as an example of why student speeches need to be approved in advance.

 

[layoutshooter]

If the kid departed from his approved speech to praise communism, or unions, or gun control, would y'all be applauding his action & defending his freedom of speech?
I think you'd be pointing to it as an example of why student speeches need to be approved in advance.

Gun control is as unconstitutional as what this principle did. It it pushed by communists and teachers unions, which are one in the same and THEY are the ones who are in charge of the public indoctrination system.

It is also MORE than possible that many graduating students have already reached the age of majority. Which means they have full access to their rights, including free POLITICAL speech, the RIGHT to practice religion WITHOUT interference from ANYONE and the right to vote.

 

[xiggi]

If the kid departed from his approved speech to praise communism, or unions, or gun control, would y'all be applauding his action & defending his freedom of speech?
I think you'd be pointing to it as an example of why student speeches need to be approved in advance.

No but you might . We all fight for the side we believe in. Regardless I don't think anyone would be applauding the principles actions in either regard.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

 

[LDB]

If the kid departed from his approved speech to praise communism, or unions, or gun control, would y'all be applauding his action & defending his freedom of speech?
I think you'd be pointing to it as an example of why student speeches need to be approved in advance.

No, I wouldn't applaud their action, yes, I'd defend freedom of (idiotic) speech and I'd point it out as an example of absolute stupidity and why students need their mostly too liberal instructors approved in advance.

 

[cheri1122]

I imagine the rule about pre approving speeches given at the ceremony has it's roots in someone's antisocial behavior - much like the carriers who don't allow drivers to walk around the building unescorted. Everyone suffers for the behavior of the few, but the rules is the rules, and the kid agreed to abide by them, then broke them.
Forgive the cynicism, but I still think y'all approve of breaking the rule because you approve of the message, and freedom of speech wouldn't be an issue if you didn't like what he wanted to say.

 

[layoutshooter]

Was the "rule" constitutional?

 

[cheri1122]

Was the "rule" constitutional?

That would be for the courts to decide, not the kid who decided to break the rule, then complained of the consequences.

 

[layoutshooter]

That would be for the courts to decide, not the kid who decided to break the rule, then complained of the consequences.

That "kid" may not be a "kid". He is going to be in the Navy come Sept. He very well may already be 18. He MAY have already registered for the draft. He very well may be an adult. I was 18 when I graduated. I had already registered to be drafted. Many are.

I would not be comfortable with only being allowed to deliver a government approved speech. The very thought of that sends chills down my spine. It REEKS of a totalitarian government with thought police.

It would never make it to the courts if no one pushed the issue.

 

[LDB]

The message was correct, so yes, I approve of the message. The action of the principal was wrong, independent of the message or the student, so I disapprove of the principal.

 

[Turtle]

That would be for the courts to decide, not the kid who decided to break the rule, then complained of the consequences.

Exactly. There is no hero and villain here - both the principal and the student are wrong. According to the apparent school policy, and state law, the principal broke both of them, and is out of control, but whether the rule the principal created or the principal's actions were constitutional or not is a separate issue from what the student did.

The student knew he didn't have to have his speech pre-approved, either according to state law or to school policy, yet he agreed to have it approved, anyway. It was at that time that he should have taken his stand. Instead, he agreed to the censorship, and then promptly went back on his word.

Whether or not the rule was constitutional is irrelevant to the kid breaking his word. Whether he is 17 years old or 18 years old is also irrelevant. The message he gave is irrelevant - it could have been about God, the devil, Communism, unions or baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet, it doesn't matter. The kid deviated from what he agreed to. What matters is his word can't be trusted, because he thinks he can ignore the rules and break his promise whenever he feels like it.

Is he the next Bradley Manning in-training, only this time in a Naval officer's uniform?

 

[xiggi]

I imagine the rule about pre approving speeches given at the ceremony has it's roots in someone's antisocial behavior - much like the carriers who don't allow drivers to walk around the building unescorted. Everyone suffers for the behavior of the few, but the rules is the rules, and the kid agreed to abide by them, then broke them.
Forgive the cynicism, but I still think y'all approve of breaking the rule because you approve of the message, and freedom of speech wouldn't be an issue if you didn't like what he wanted to say.

Did you read it according to the kid and his lawyer it was the school who did not follow their own rules and if memory serves me state law.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

 

[cheri1122]

Did you read it according to the kid and his lawyer it was the school who did not follow their own rules and if memory serves me state law.

Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.

Yes, I read it, and it said the school rules were illegal, but they followed them. Whether it's illegal to preapprove a speech is debatable - the law [or school policy] says they cannot "draft or edit" it, but they can approve or reject it, seems like.
Either way, if the kid felt it was wrong, he should have resolved the issue before agreeing to stick to a preapproved speech, then not doing it.

 

[layoutshooter]

"Is he the next Bradley Manning in-training, only this time in a Naval officer's uniform?"


Or maybe one of the few people left in the Country that has the stones to stand up against government control and the tyranny that is taking place? Only time will tell if he is a patriot or a traitor. The ONLY difference, in many cases, is if one agrees with the individual.

Accepting , even supporting, the idea of government approved speeches. Unbelievable in a free country.

 

[Turtle]

"Is he the next Bradley Manning in-training, only this time in a Naval officer's uniform?"


Or maybe one of the few people left in the Country that has the stones to stand up against government control and the tyranny that is taking place?

Nope. He didn't even do that when he had the chance. He accepted, rather than rejected the government control, and then broke his word.

Only time will tell if he is a patriot or a traitor. The ONLY difference, in many cases, is if one agrees with the individual.

Accepting , even supporting, the idea of government approved speeches. Unbelievable in a free country.

I agree. Promising that you will do something, and then you do the exact opposite, just as unbelievable.