Playing the First Amendment card

Picking and choosing your free-speech battles

By Aditya Kashyap
From the September 2006 Print Edition

It is possible that no political idea in modern history has been the basis for more controversy, debate, and violence than the notion of the inalienable right of freedom of speech. To what extent, if any at all, an individual should retain such a freedom is a debate as old as humanity’s very first civilizations; it was once again brought to the forefront of discussion when during a high school graduation ceremony, the valedictorian made references to Jesus Christ and subsequently had her microphone cut off.

On June 15, Brittany McComb of Foothill High School in Henderson, Nevada, addressed about 400 fellow graduates during the graduation commencement ceremony. She was well into her speech when school officials cut her audio feed. “God’s love is so great that he gave his only son up,” she said, before the microphone went dead. She continued without amplification: “… to an excruciating death on a cross so his blood would cover all our shortcomings and provide for us a way to heaven in accepting this grace.”

As a result, McComb filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Nevada, naming the principal, assistant principal, and a school employee who literally pulled the plug. McComb admits school officials warned beforehand her speech would be cut off if she did not follow the scripted delivery approved by the school. Her original speech contained references to Christ and welcomed others to join her faith. Officials had deleted such religious references, yet McComb memorized those parts and delivered them during the ceremony anyway.

The Rutherford Institute, the conservative legal group handling the lawsuit, claims school officials violated McComb’s rights afforded to her under the First and 14th Amendments. School district attorney Bill Hoffman states school officials merely followed a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling requiring schools to censor any student speech that proselytizes.

Indeed, the First Amendment does uphold the right of an individual to the freedom of expression, and in this case the freedom of speech. McComb should have every right to express her religious convictions as long as this does not impede on the civil rights of others.

In this case, though, the speech was delivered during a graduation ceremony at a public school where McComb had a captive audience. Any speech given must have school approval because the event includes all graduating class members. The ceremony is a gathering that encompasses all graduates, and therefore any statements or views expressed using the time of the attendees must be representative or applicable to the class as a whole. Had McComb been making the same speech anywhere else, even on school grounds, assuming she wasn’t disrupting classes, her claim to free speech would be legitimate. But the fact she was speaking on behalf of students and school at a school-sponsored event meant she was speaking officially, thus forfeiting any right to proselytize in such a forum without the consent of the school.

The second basis indicating a violation of rights, the lawsuit argues, is the 14th Amendment. Since three of the four parts of this amendment concern themselves with House representatives, senators, and the public debt, it can be assumed that the lawsuit refers to the first clause: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The key phrase in this clause is “without due process of law.” It is true the liberty and privileges of McComb were limited by the State, but only after due process of law. When the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the issue in the specific context of a graduation ceremony both in 2001 and 2004 its decision became law, thus rendering the lawsuit’s “due process” argument invalid.

The amendment also states no person will be denied equal protection of the laws by the State. If McComb was not allowed to invite others to join her faith during her speech, and other speakers were, then she would have a point. The fact that no student was allowed to proselytize during the school-sponsored event and such a decision was the direct result of a federal ruling on the matter nullifies any claims of a violation of rights under either amendment.

McComb was asked to speak about what was important to her. She chose to speak about God and the impact of religion in her life. That, in itself, is no crime. If anything, she is to be applauded for having the courage to be genuine enough to share what she truly cares about, unaffected by the secularist, politically correct attitude that most of society imposes. While it was unfortunate that she could not finish her comments, the basis for a lawsuit is insufficient to prove that her rights were truly violated.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot