OUR VIEW: Jesus talk won't reach high court

The Jesus speech has become a dilemma familiar to most throughout the Pikes Peak Region, and to First Amendment scholars throughout the country. It ended Monday when the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear the appeal of Erica Corder, the Lewis-Palmer High School graduate who said school officials infringed on her constitutional rights to free speech.

This column has often discussed the gargantuan difference between the kind of censorship forbidden by the First Amendment, and the kind of discretion practiced by private individuals, magazines, newspapers, libraries, and other private entities in deciding what gets communicated to audiences. When a government impedes private speech, through prior restraint or retaliation, it violates the First Amendment — with exceptions. Government is empowered to impede obscene expressions that violate community standards, or information that may lead to imminent danger. As the old cliché tells us, government may retaliate if a person maliciously yells “fire” in a crowded theater with knowledge there is no fire.

The distinction between allowable forms of censorship and unlawful censorship are usually obvious. When YouTube declines to host an anti-Semitic video it “censors” the material in a fashion that’s allowable by law, because the First Amendment doesn’t impede passive forms of censorship on the part of private players. Like the rest of the Constitution, the First Amendment restricts only the actions of government in an effort to protect the individual.

The censorship distinction blurred when a government entity, Lewis-Palmer High School, punished Corder for speaking about her Christian faith during a 2006 graduation speech. Corder sued, and she continually lost and appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court.

The details are well known: School officials pre-approved Corder’s speech. They considered it an institutional speech, and not merely the talk of one student. Corder strayed from the text, choosing to proselytize about her personal savior, Jesus Christ. As a result, school officials refused to give Corder her diploma until she publicly acknowledged the remarks were her own and not the school’s.

It’s a complicated case. Corder was asked to speak on public property, in a public venue. Great speeches are often spontaneous, inspired in the moment. And in the United States, religion and speech are a right of each individual. Yet it seems fair to argue that Corder had agreed to give a specific speech, which was approved by school officials. In that agreement, one could argue, she willingly gave up her right to speak about faith in that venue. The fact school officials approved all graduate speeches gave the words an institutional stamp, and it’s not OK for a public school to proselytize a religion.

Much like the Massachusetts cops who arrested a black professor at his own home, however, the administration at Lewis-Palmer acted unwisely. They won, but they also lost. They should have expressed their disapproval with Corder privately, put out their own statement explaining how Corder had strayed from the approved text, and let it go. Instead, they initiated a holy war with an impassioned teenager. In doing so, they thoroughly rewarded her for straying from the speech. They placed her in the national limelight, and made her a martyr of sorts for complaints about anti Christian persecution. What did the school district gain from this? Approximately nothing.

By agreeing to give one speech, and delivering another, it appears Corder violated a contract. She delivered a personal speech that was intended as an institutional speech.

Students, here’s some advice: If given only one option — an institutional speech or no speech at all — choose one and stand your ground. But here’s a better idea. How about schools let their top graduates deliver whatever advice they choose. Set time limits and boundaries that prevent speakers from violating community decency standards. Treat the graduates like the young adults they are, and allow them to speak within the boundaries commonly accepted in society — boundaries set by a constitution that specifically protects religious expression. Few could be interested in hearing a top graduate parrot the thoughts of school administrators. Graduations are boring enough without the need for that. From now on, let’s allow graduates to speak from their hearts — whether they’re inspired by math, science, Jesus, Buddha, or the Great Spaghetti Monster on high. Just let them talk. It’s the American way. — Wayne Laugesen, editorial page editor, for the editorial board

—

NOTE: Our View upholds a proud tradition at The Gazette of advocating individual freedom, constitutional law, faith, and limited government. Editorial opinions have no connection with The Gazette’s news division, and do not express the views of all Gazette associates.