Actually, I think the first amendment is interpreted as broader than simply protection from government censorship of what we say. I did a little digging, and found (on Wikipedia):
Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the
First Amendment to the
United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as
racism,
sexism, and other
hate speech are almost always permitted. There are exceptions to these general protection's, including the
Miller test for
obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as
advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on
free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors and inventors over their works and discoveries (
copyright and
patent), interests in "fair" political campaigns (
Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on
fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (
slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance.
separate article:
In
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393
U.S. 503 (1969), the Supreme Court extended free speech rights to students in school. The case involved several students who were punished for wearing black armbands to protest the
Vietnam War. The Supreme Court ruled that the school could not restrict symbolic speech that did not cause undue interruptions of school activities. Justice
Abe Fortas wrote,
[S]chools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students...are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State.
However, since 1969 the Supreme Court has placed a number of limitations on
Tinker interpretations. In
Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478
U.S. 675 (1986), the Court ruled that a student could be punished for his sexual-innuendo-laced speech before a school assembly and, in
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 484
U.S. 260 (1988), the Court found that school newspapers enjoyed fewer First Amendment protections and are subject to school censorship. More recently, in
Morse v. Frederick, 551
U.S. 393 (2007) the Court ruled that schools could, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at school-sponsored events, even events away from school grounds, if students promote "illegal drug use."
So, as distasteful and stupid I think this woman's comments are, I still believe she has the right to make them and I don't believe the school (a government entity since it belongs to the State of California) has the right to punish her for being a jerk.
It used to be that people could have open discussions on just about any topic without resorting to demands that the opposing side be censored. When we lose our freedom to speak our own opinions, we will surely start losing other freedoms as well. I hate it that this is even going on in our own government. This is why, as much as I hate what she said, I believe her right to say it must be protected.