Censorship, why do we have double standards? Who has what rights and why?

Question

I just saw on msnbc a validictorian I think her name was britney McComb her speach was edited before she gave it.
To not include god. In her speach she thanked god for her academic acomplishments.
Her mic was cut off becuse she read her speach as it was written.
Why is our president allowed to use god in speaches and high school students arn't?
It seems that Bushes use of god in speaches has the potentail to be far more polarizing.
Why is it a strict and seros rule for students and not for teachers?
Who has what rights and why?
I'm not a rights weirdo I just think it would be interesting to know why.
Does fredom of speach really matter?

Answer 1

If you have a system that is controlled by a coalition of big money, warmongers and religious fanatics and hypocrits, that's what you get.

Answer 2

Freedom of speach does matter.

What double standards do you mean?
Things have changed so much. There are many more people then there were. When the Freedom of speach was written the population was nowhere near as open and diverse.

Now more protocols are in force (in my opinion is is a double-sided good and bad)
I don't like walking down the road or just sitting outside enjoying my freedom of time and a car races by with "**** you *****" blasting louder then the passenger/driver should have it.
I have a 4 y/o that likes to play outside and He doesn't need to hear that. It doesn't matter where you are. If you are in your own home then fine by me; I don't mean that the music shouldn't be played in the car or at all. It just doesn't have to be played so loud!
In short I strongly believe that descretion is very much appreciated.
Why should the "Bitches and Ho's" get all the attention. And the peace talkers get ignored. Most of the population wants peace not death and violence. It is what at least 45% (my guestimate) of the worlds population wants.

But this is just one part of the subject.

Answer 3

*accomplishments
*speech
*speeches
*aren't
*potential
*serious
*freedom
*speech

Of course freedom of speech really matters. If it didn't, you wouldn't be able to post here, would you?

As far as high school speeches - perhaps the people went too far because of the fear of being sued or persecuted. She should have the right to thank her god and whatever she feels s/he has done for her. I haven't heard the speech, so I don't know how far it went with the piousness, so I'm not comfortable commenting on it. However, if she went against the school's rules, then she deserved to have the mic turned off. Fair or not, rules are rules. She should have gotten them to change the rule before speaking, or suffer the consequences (she did).

For Bush, I don't know that there is a double standard. It's his opinions, and he's not forcing people to either watch his speeches or subscribe to his religion (yet). Yes, there is a separation of church & state, but this isn't him requiring prayer or him hassling co-workers over religion. It's simply him giving his personal beliefs and thoughts.

Answer 4

The separation-of-church-and-state clause contained in the liberty-of-speech change is frequently interpreted to point that civil servants and public officials ought to no longer use their workplace to promote or suppress any particular faith. probable, Bush's comments are ok because he's not any longer evangelizing and infrequently refers to any particular god, at the same time as he's speaking as president. Why McComb's comments are not ok is not common to make sure. even even if she became at a authorities-subsidized journey, she's no longer a public valid. My maximum proper guess will be that the variety of references she made to a particular faith brought in regards to the school to develop into worried that her speech should be interpreted as a sermon being given at a public college. i'm no longer particular why the ACLU subsidized them up on that. i imagine the present political climate has made them a touch overzealous on some matters. On a correct subject matter, i'm a touch wondered through why some human beings say that separation of church and state is a liberal idea. i am going to't image that very many conservative Christians will be cheering if a Buddhist, Hindu, Mormon, Muslim, Kabbalist, Scientologist, or Wiccan were utilising a authorities workplace to make speeches and create public coverage that endorsed their religions.

Answer 5

Frankly, I read the same artical in the paper and I thought it was a bit ridiculous. Allow me two opposing thoughts.
First, the US Constitution is clear; you can not mix "church and State". However, our country was founded with a direct relationship with God, "One nation under God...... ". This is where the mix of church and state becomes an acceptable blend, with the President. Double stanards, yes, but not in the blatent context of the next thought.
I grew up at a time in which the pledge of allegience was required every day in elementary through 12th grade. I did not attend a parochial school, however, we were allowed and encouraged to utilize our particular religous beleifs as needed, provided certain conditions were met, namly, follow dress code, no ditching, pretty simple. (There were more, but not important here).
My generation grew up fairly well, we had no problem with the pledge of allegience, nor the the National Anthem or it's reference to God.
Then comes along some guy who has determined that his kid should not be forced to say the pledge as it contains the reference to God, and he raised her an atheist, which fine, but he took this all the way to the supreme court, pushing his beliefs on the rest of those who didn't have a problem. As a result, prayer has been taken out of public schools, the plege is only done at certain times, (meetings, assembly, games, etc), and the choice to use "God" is up to the person.
Rencenty, this same guy filed court papers attempting to get the phrase, "In God We Trust" taken off paper money.
Here's an interesting look at the results of all of this:
My generation did not have gang problems like today, we didn't have the skyrocketing divorce rate of today, we didn't have the lack of moral values we do today, we didn't have the lack of respect afforded to authority like we do today. We didn't have the crime rate we do today, and the prison's weren't overcrowed as a result like we have today.
Summarily, I am not so sure that this guys idea of freedom of speech disqualifications (God, and the other religious significance in general public forums) has really helped us as a society.
What is now the rule as a result of the Supreme court ruling started by this guy is that the limited foundation for crossing church and state is limited to a very narrow forum, not to include any PUBLIC GATHERING, where the support of that gathering is in whole or part funded by any state, federal, or local government. Schools are funded by state , federal and local (taxes) money.
So, there you have it. Any gathering, public organization that is funded or supported by ANY TAX DOLLARS, STATE OR FEDERAL, is prohibited from using any secular religious names or symbols. God, is a name/symbol.

Personally, the guy who started this crap should be kicked out of this country. Not because he believes a certain way about religion, but because, he in effect, took away million's of people's right to "free speech". This young girls right to express thanks to whomever she pleased ( in this case, God), was edited out thanks to him.
Since when was religion and it's primary teachings, be it Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, LDS, etc... be bad?
Got me>>>

Answer 6

To give a person rights is a difficult matter. When you give one person a right you take a corresponding right from another. For example if I was granted the right to play music as loud as I wanted to whenever I wanted to, that would take away my neighbour's right to peace and quiet. We live in a society now where through governmental interference (I mean that in the nicest possible sense) for example CCTV and information technology, identity cards, political correctness etc., our basic rights are being eroded very slowly. We are being 'nannied' by the state and their interference, good or bad is taking its toll on our rights. It is a dilema for the public and the law makers. We make laws to protect the vulnerable and even the stupid but by doing this are we taking away the liberty of the strong and sensible? Tough question.

Answer 7

Good question. We had to stop using god in school because an athiest (someone who does not believe in god) went to court and said it wasent write for his children to have to have anything to do with god in school. But he cant take the president to court so he's stock with that. I'll bet he dident vote for Bush though lol.

Answer 8

I just think it is STUPID to have her speech edited to not include god. I mean really.. grow up people!!!