Reply #135: Raster did not say for whom the speech would have been illegal, though..

[No Elephants]

The school did have control, in theory, over her speech. She had to submit it in advance for school approval. She did so and got approval, but then deviated from the text. Even then, the school did have a degree of control, which it exercised by turning off her mike.

As far as being accused, how do you know what the school was or was not accused of? We know that the valedictorian sued, but people can accuse without suing. And, since the school did everything it reasonably could to avoid having religion impose on people in attendance, I am not sure there was anything that the school could be fairly accused of. (Two courts held that the valedictorian's accusations were unfair.) Besides, since when does being accused of something mean you are guilty of it? Or since when does not being accused of something mean you are innocent?

And, yes, if the school had participated in imposing religion on those attending the graduation, the school would have been in violation of the Establishment Clause, as interpreted by the SCOTUS for the past 60 years, if not more. The school's violating the highest law in the nation would indeed = illegal. The valedictorian was aware of that, or she would not have submitted a less religious speech for approval, then attempted to deliver a more religious one without informing the school in advance.