I have to go with the “clear guidelines” that were referred to earlier. There have to be clear guidelines–it’s a graduation speech, after all, and should have something to do with The Generation of Tomorrow, or Bright Futures, or The Torch Is Passed, or other similar themes. Yes, they’re hokey and they’ve all been done before, but after all, it is a speech to a group of graduates.
Look at it this way: if, twenty years later, Abe (or Bill, Julie, Chris, or Dave) were to address the, say, National Society of Bird Watchers, would a political or religious speech (for or against any viewpoint) be appropriate? Probably not; the audience would likely want to hear something about birds, rather than the personal political or religious views of the speaker. On the other hand, if, twenty years later, Abe or the others were to address a political rally, then a political speech would be appropriate, while a religious speech would be fine at a religious event. A speech should be tailored to the needs of the audience, not the needs of the speaker.
Sounds to me like the valedictorian mentioned in the OP remembered only his need for expression when he wrote his draft, completely forgetting about the need of the audience for a relevant-to-the-occasion speech. As such, I would dismiss Abe’s lawsuit, but I would remind him that he is more than welcome to give his speech to any group who gathers for the purpose of sharing and disseminating political views. Or, I’d suggest that he publish it in a media outlet that is willing to publish it, or even to publish it privately.
After all, Abe has the right to express his views, but he should choose his venues for airing those views appropriately. Otherwise, he becomes little better than the overenthusiastic evangelists we so often rail against, pushing his views on those who may not agree with, or even want to, hear them.
