An Eagleville Valedictorian Abe Stokla had his diploma withheld after making some comments about his school during his graduation speech:
What is the controversy about?

“You have given us the minimum required attention and education to master any station at any McDonald’s anywhere. For that we think you. Of course, I’m only kidding. Eagleville is a fine institute of higher learning, with superb faculty and staff.”

However the audience never heard that part of his speech. School principal Rhonda Holton killed the microphone because it deviated from the speech originally approved by school administrators. She said that it implied that the high school doesn’t offer quality education.
Holton is on some type of power trip. This is a high school graduation, not a speech to the U.N. Rhonda, get off your high horse and welcome back to earth. As a result of your decision more people have heard Stoka’s comments than would have heard it on graduation night. Your decision shows a lack of openmindness and a lack of respect for free speech. His comments were not meant to be derogatory toward the school; it was meant as a joke.
Somehow this reminds me of some dialogue from my favorite movie:

Ed Rooney: I don’t trust this kid any further than I can throw him.
Grace: Well, with your bad knee Ed, you shouldn’t throw anybody… Its true.
Ed Rooney: What is so dangerous about a character like Ferris Bueller is he gives good kids bad ideas.
Grace: Mmm-hmm.
Ed Rooney: Last thing I need at this point in my career is fifteen hundred Ferris Bueller disciples running around these halls. He jeopardizes my ability to effectivley govern this student body.
Grace: Well, makes you look like a [jerk] is what he does, Ed.

Update 5/28/2005:
Eagleville principal: Valedictorian misled: Holton says he promised to leave bad statements out

Utah’s governor has signed an anti-net porn law. Basically the law says that the state’s attorney general will make a list of websites which are offensive to minors. Apparently the law is pretty vague in how it determines which websites are offensive. What the Utah AG finds offensive may not be offensive to you or me. And what I find offensive might not be offensive to the Utah AG. It’s all relative.
Those who support this law are basically saying two things:
1. We don’t know how to install filtering programs and secure our computer through passwords and are depending on the ISPs/state government to filter stuff for us.
2. We don’t know how to be a parent. We are unable to properly regulate our child’s surfing habits.
Those who identify with these two categories can do one (or both) of these things: 1) Promptly return your computer to the place you purchased it. 2) Put your kid up for adoption. The latter is a bit extreme, but is almost becoming the norm in a society who refuses to parent. Instead parents are relying on state laws, schools, youth ministers, church leaders, etc… to do their parenting for them. There are some things that only a parent can do, and this includes the home PC.
Filtering software is pretty widespread. Many programs are available as free downloads (for trials). Passwords are readily available on most any new operating system. Parents, secure your computer. Put it in a public place. Only let your child surf while you are at home and can monitor it. If you are unable to do this and still have concerns about the child’s surfing habits, perhaps you should not have a computer.

Teen’s mom rekindles debate over novel

“Andrea Minnon of Lebanon said she had never heard of “The Catcher in the Rye” before she learned that it was on her 14-year-old son Spencer’s freshman reading list. After researching the book online with her husband, she concluded that it espouses immoral ideas that are inappropriate for freshman-age students. Now she wants it removed from the freshman curriculum.”

What rock as Andrea been living under for the past 30 years? Censorship is such a blessed thing.

Google wins in trademark suit with Geico
Yay for Google! Free speech wins out again. The problem is that the internet is so new, not many individuals or companies understand it. Geico is one of those companies. Google can do whatever it wants to do on its website. If it wants to see ads for Pepsi when someone searches for Coke, they should be able to do so.
If Geico doesn’t like what Google is doing, then they should ask Google for a refund of its free service.

Thought this was interesting. I’m having deja vu.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/education/cst-nws-payton14.html
Chicago Sun Times
March 14, 2004
BY MAUDLYNE IHEJIRIKA Staff Reporter
Derogatory comments about gay weddings and blacks posted on a Web log by a junior at Walter Payton College Prep have sparked tensions among students — and provided a lesson about the First Amendment.
In a rare move, the Chicago Public Schools’ top lawyers converged on the Gold Coast magnet school Friday to explain that the 16-year-old girl was not being disciplined because she has a right to free speech. The girl has since shut down her Web log.
The girl’s comments had ranged from deriding gay marriage to belittling the impact of slavery. Despite two schoolwide assemblies at which officials addressed the issue last week, some students and parents remained angry.
“I think it’s horrible. I was outraged,” said parent Sharon Dancy. “The student made some very negative comments about black people that I won’t even repeat, and I think people like her represent the epitome of our societal problems.”
Dancy’s daughter Niema, a senior, said she and other students brought the blog to the school’s attention Wednesday, and they resented a gaggle of CPS lawyers coming to tell them the First Amendment protects the girl from being disciplined. “A lot of us felt the discrimination was disgraceful,” she said.
School officials said the most they could do was meet with the girl and discuss sensitivity and tolerance issues. “We found out that she did write these inflammatory comments. We discussed with her the contents and how hurtful they were. On Thursday, we met with her parents,” Payton Principal Gail Ward said.
School officials declined to release the exact nature of the comments posted by the girl and others on the blog.
“A lot of this stuff had to do with gay marriage. She was against gay marriage, and there were comments about slavery that certainly could be offensive,” said CPS general counsel Ruth Moscovitch, who was at the school Friday.
Moscovitch and two other lawyers were called to the school after students were still questioning why the girl faced no discipline for her comments. The lawyers explained. “The comments weren’t made in school. They may be opinions we don’t like, but they’re opinions,” Moscovitch said. “The questions had to do with understanding the First Amendment and how our society protects free expression.”

They actually had 2 schoolwide assemblies about this girl’s homepage. Wow!