That principal might be an ass, but no, minors do not have rights.

That's why they must have guardians.

And every difficulty attending the application of laws to the behavior of minors features confusion about this in their application.

"But anyone who's ever been in high school knows that some people are drawn to education because they enjoy petty power over people who can't fight back."

OMG, this is so true! And not just for education; but, also, for law-enforcement. The real question is how do we weed those kind of folks out?

Not only do minors have rights, but legal adulthood begins at 18 in most states. What I don't understand, is why it matters whether or not the young lady receives a physical diploma. The petty tyrant of a principal can't prevent her actual graduation and has made an ass out of himself to no purpose.

Okay, here's your giggle test:

Name the RIGHTS a ten-year-old has.

This will illustrate the confusion surrounding the concept, and make clearer the ease with which the issue may be exploited.

Most 10-year-olds I know have a right to not be molested by an adult. They have a right to live with and obey their parents. They have a right to breath, eat, sleep, live and play in relative safety. They have a right to an education. They have a right to explore their world unmolested by other 10-year-olds, and when that right is violated, they have a right to seek punishment for their tormentor(s). And every 10-year-old has a right to grow up to adulthood.

"The larger question is this: In a society that operates on the free exchange of ideas, why do we tolerate an educational system that teaches children to keep safe by keeping silent?"

What makes him believe 1 or 2? Certainly for most people and society itself #2 is the common theme, and those who don't toe that line have a harder life...

But then those that don't toe that line prolly don't care.

Most people don't believe in the free exchange of ideas they don't like... but usually they don't have a choice.

Hopefully this young woman will transcend the doubling down adults that wish for her to stay in her place.

"...in her valedictory address she said that, when people ask her what she wants to be, she responds, "How the hell should I know? I've changed my mind so many times."

Sounds to me like a little kid in her first time on a big stage decided to throw in a swear word to sound all grown up ... and it came back to bite her in the ass.

The parents in the audience were not her buddies in the lunchroom. The school district officials in attendance were not dishing gossip with her on the quad. This was supposed to be a dignified affair (at least as dignified as a modern high school graduation can be). She needed to elevate her speech to the circumstances.

No one is making retract her speech or renounce the ideas she put forth.

The issue is the use of a single word in a particular environment.

As the valedictorian, she represented the school during her speech.

While "...how the hell..." does not quite rise to the level of "fire!" in a crowded theatre, this is not the evil censorship of free speech it's being made out to be by the hypersensitive.

We legitimately censor the style of speech all the time. While Carlin's seven words may no longer be as verboten as they once were, there are still words that cannot be said on "public" airwaves.

Remember Boswell's Johnson, "speak that I may see thee." Appearance is only one way of judging those we do not know. How they speak is another. What language they choose to employ in a given situation says a great deal about them.

Language has degrees of appropriateness. What is appropriate in the locker room or the basement comedy club is not appropriate for the family dinner or executive boardroom.

That said, is the principal being arbitrary and silly? Yes.

The principal should award her the diploma with an admonishment that she learn to speak with kings as well as knaves.

"Actually, minors do have rights. " Well, yes, but they don't have all the rights that adults have. For instance, courts have pretty consistently held that schools may search students' personal property without cause when it is on school grounds. That said, I repeat one of my old chestnuts: Just because something is legal, that doesn't make it a good idea. Repeatedly abusing parental (or loco parentis) authority over children, especially older ones, does not teach them the right lesson.

Flynne: that protection is provided by others.

I'm not seeking to quibble here, but to point out that the idea of "rights" is FAR more subject to personal whim than even the commonly-held, but often wrong, beliefs about laws.

The same criteria - having no bases - can be applied to innumerable other things we all wish would be well-provided to any youngster: a home, two parents (like Crid says), ample food, a bully-free school and social environment...

There are rights enumerated in the Constitution, but even these are mistaken by millions as being provided by government.

If YOU cannot recognize and exercise a right, YOU do not have it. It may be provided by others, as would be the case in a guardianship of any kind, or it may be by a collective of some sort. In such case, you'd better pray to the FSM that their interests exactly match yours, for you are a commodity.

Luv ya Radwaste. Stealing your phrase.

We legitimately censor the style of speech all the time. While Carlin's seven words may no longer be as verboten as they once were, there are still words that cannot be said on "public" airwaves. -- Conan the Grammarian at August 27, 2012 9:50 AM

Now I have a question on this -- where does the FCC have a right to limit your speech on the public airwaves? Did/does the FCC have the right to limit Howard Stern's speech on terrestrial radio? Is Janet Jackson's breast really offensive to the majority?

If you answer yes to any of this then you are against the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

I agree an FCC type organization is needed to deconflict frequencies. The organization is not needed to limit speech.

This young lady spoke, probably in her natural style, even after submitting the speech. But if you make it to fifteen without hearing "hell" in the natural context of religion or in use in conversation you must have been very severely sheltered.

This petty tyranny has been going on for a while in all schools. Our elected senior class president was a vo-Tech student (probable pot smoker) who won 60% of the vote against three other candidates. Somehow he was disqualified, after the vote, because he didn't have a B+ average. (This qualification was never mentioned in the student handbook.)

So if I were her -- I would submit a pro-forma $20M First Amendment lawsuit against the school board and the administrator for defamation, denial of rights, etc. I have this feeling the school board would hand her diploma with a ceremony that makes the Fourth of July look like a one year old's birthday party.

If you answer yes to any of this then you are against the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

Not necessarily.

Being offended by Howard Stern's off-color topics or Janet Jackson's breast at a Super Bowl halftime show is not being against the First Amendment. It's merely being offended.

And I agree the FCC goes too far at times - far too often in fact.

However, there is a societal benefit to not having obscene words, horrific violence, and gratuitous nudity broadcast at any and all hours of the day across open airwaves.

Even Stern managed to keep his language mostly clean when dealing with topics like anal sex, three-ways, and boob jobs; with guests like porn stars, strippers, sex addicts, and street junkies.

Without at least some regulatory oversight, I shudder to think to what extent most television programming will degenerate. Check out what passes for comedy movies these days if you want a hint.

Look at how far open airwave television has degenerated with regulatory oversight.

While some networks would impose standards in order to attract viewers who don't want a daily dose of Harold and Kumar, Scarface, or Piranha, most networks will cater to the lowest common denominator to get the "young guy" advertising dollars.

Ideally, there would be a free market in television (or television-like) programming and we could all chose the degree of raunch, blood-soaked violence, or gross-out humor we want to watch. But, until open airwave bandwidth becomes less limited than it is now, we need at least a minimum standard.

Whether the FCC is the right mechanism for setting and maintaining that standard is open to debate.

We have a right to free speech. We do not have a right to be protected from the consequences of exercising that speech.

A letter of apology is not "humiliating." Unless, that is, she's illiterate. That would be embarrassing for everyone.

"However, there is a societal benefit to not having obscene words, horrific violence, and gratuitous nudity broadcast at any and all hours of the day across open airwaves."

Many world leaders would argue that there is a societal benefit to censoring the news, killing ethnic minorities, and executing dissidents without trial

She said hell, within a perfectly reasonable context while quoting herself. As a legal adult of 18 yrs of age.

As far as what rights children have, they have access to all 10 of the Bill of rights. Gun ownership might be done via proxy by parents, and parents may choose to punish children for engaging in free speech. But government institutions, or which public schools are one have no standing to interfer.

When I was a kid I had a .22, it was mine. My dad was a marine and didnt fuck around with guns, I had to take damn good care of that rifle and any fucking around would have brought swift reprisals.

He was crushed in a car wreck, has nerve damage across the entire right side of his body, almost completely blind in his right eye and horribly near sighted in his left, but man could he shoot. I remeber we were up in the hills once doing target practice. He shot a can with the .22 held at his hip and put five more bullets thru it as it sailed thru the air

Many world leaders would argue that there is a societal benefit to censoring the news, killing ethnic minorities, and executing dissidents without trial.

WTF? That has absolutely no relationship to what I wrote.

Someone getting slapped on the wrist for inappropriate behavior or choice of words is not the precursor to a dictatorship taking over America.

The principal is insisting she write a letter of apology for one word in her speech, a word he (and apparently the school district) consider inappropriate for a high school graduation speech.

She is not being lined up to be shot, nor is she being censored. She is being asked to apologize for using a word considered in appropriate by the sponsors of the event at which she spoke.

She is free to go out on a public street and give the same speech with the word "hell" left in it.

She said hell, within a perfectly reasonable context while quoting herself. As a legal adult of 18 yrs of age.

She said "hell" on a stage that was not hers, at an event in which that word was considered inappropriate, and she is being censured for it (not censored).

She said "hell" while still a student of that high school in that school district. She said "hell" while representing the school and the district at an event sponsored by the school and the district.

No one is asking her to renounce her speech or any idea addressed therein.

==============================

Do I think the principal is being silly and unreasonably arbitrary? Yes.

As I wrote earlier, the principal should award her the diploma with an admonishment that she learn how to address an adult audience as an adult rather than as a child reveling in her first "big girl" speaking event.

She said "hell" while still a adult graduate from that publicly funded high school in that publicly funded school district. She said "hell" while representing the publicly funded school and the publicly funded district at an event sponsored by the publicly funded school and the publicly funded district.

Do I think the principal is being silly and unreasonably arbitrary? Yes.

I can agree heartily with that

As I wrote earlier, the principal should award her the diploma with an admonishment that she learn how to address an adult audience as an adult rather than as a child reveling in her first "big girl" speaking event. -- Conan the Grammarian at August 28, 2012 10:14 AM

I disagree with that sentiment stridently.

The school is a government institution. The principal is a small man trying to control a person who is no longer under his control.

...while still [an] adult graduate....

I don't think she was a graduate ... yet. She had met all the requirements to be able to attend the graduation ceremony. However, I believe you're not officially a graduate until after the ceremony.

I was forced to endure my high school graduation with the threat that failure to attend would result in the withholding of my diploma and the imposition of additional educational requirements - because I was still a student until meeting all requirements to be officially graduated from the institution.

How sitting in a stuffy auditorium in June in Florida for two hours would further my education, I was never told.

How watching the other "adults" in my graduating class bat beach balls and inflated dolls to each other furthered my education, I was never told.

How listening to the "adults" graduated a year earlier screech and hoot in the audience furthered my education, I was never told.

Now that it is too late -- I wonder if she would have refused to give a speech, let alone attend the ceremony.

"The class valedictorian is a no show?" Would that embarrass the school?

Someone getting slapped on the wrist for inappropriate behavior or choice of words is not the precursor to a dictatorship taking over America

Yes it is, censorship of adults by governemnt employees one of the definitions of a dictatorship

Yes it is, censorship of adults by [government] employees [is] one of the definitions of a dictatorship.

Again, she was not censored. She was allowed to deliver her speech in its entirety.

Afterward, she was admonished because she chose to use what the school administration considered a swear word in a speech representing the school.

Keep in mind, she was still a student at the school when she gave the speech.

She screwed up and the principal is being a jerk about it. But it's within his purview to take action to maintain a standard of decorum at the school and at school events. The parents are free to protest his actions and/or insist the school board replace him.

This girl cannot be unaware that she's living in the buckle of the Bible Belt and that any word stronger than "gosh" could give the local women a case of the vapors and send the menfolk runnin' fer their shotguns.

She substituted "heck" in the written draft of the speech she submitted to the administration beforehand? She says she got flustered while speaking and said "hell" instead of "heck" by accident. The principal seems to believe the written speech was an intentional act of deception on her part and she always meant to say "hell."

What's worse, she was mimicking a graduation speech in one of the Twilight movies. For that, she deserves a fate worse than death. [said tongue-in-cheek, don't go nuts over it]

Censorship isnt just limited to prevent certain words from being spoken or written, it also covers punish those who break the arbitrary and often unknown guidelines

...arbitrary and often unknown guidelines...

When she submitted her speech before the ceremony it had the word "heck" instead of "hell." That means she knew what the guidelines were.

Most jurisdictions give you a ticket and a fine for rolling through stop signs. Of course that's an actual public safety issue rather than the use of a word one hears used casually on any night in a variety of television programs.

Withholding the diploma seems extreme. Of course, it is the only leverage on her the principal has left since she's completed the required course load and needs only that final sign off to be officially graduated.

Asking for an apology for an infraction of a known rule does not seem out of line. However, the principal's line in the sand approach made a bigger deal of this than should have been made.

Now, he can't back down without losing face and she risks her scholarship if she doesn't comply.

He should asked for a simple apology offered in the privacy of his office. He can than assure any offended parties that he has spoken to the young woman and it was an inadvertent error on her part.