Dr. Roy has blogged a couple of times about Brittany McComb, a Nevada high school valedictorian who had her speech censored by the school. When McComb chose to read her original speech, despite the school editing out her religious remarks, they chose to cut off the power to her microphone, in effect, censoring her speech.
The ACLU has chosen to side with the school on this one. They say that the school is giving her the forum to speak and should have control over what she says. *screeching tires* What?? Back that up. The ACLU says that an authority should have control over what an individual says?? Am I hearing this right?
What’s the ACLU become? They certainly aren’t defenders of free speech anymore. This is the type of case they used to grab onto with those sharp canines and shake their head like a pitbull until their prey was screaming for mercy. But NOOooooo. In the case of it being religious, they have chosen to defend the school’s censorship over the student’s First Amendment rights.
The ACLU could have used this case to shake off the left leaning labels they are being painted with. But instead they have chosen to reveal that they are truly a biased agency.
Brittany is going to court strictly on free speech grounds (i.e no financial aspects) and I wish her, and her lawyers, the best.
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 591
Freedom of speech as long as you say what the ACLU wants to hear. Like so many such groups, they can’t shake their bias. When was the last time you heard the Centre for Policy Alternatives recommend smaller government which protected citizen’s privacy rights? The Fraser Institute recommend an increase in taxation? The NDP make sense whatsoever??