NationStates Jolt Archive

Rape and violence has more educational value than gay love? Aren't both works reflections on society?

You said yourself, you also read the book. Clockwork Orange is widely considered canon and the movie is used in addition to the book.

While both works (Orange and Mountain) are reflections of society, there's got to be a more appropriate movie than Brokeback Mountain to show the plight of the homosexual community. I'd question showing Clockwork Orange to 12-year-olds just as much as I do Brokeback Mountain.

*Note: I've never seen BM either, to me it just looked like a standard love story that was banking on the fact that the main characters were closet homosexuals.

What bounds are there for showing videos?
I watched Clockwork Orange in class once. Nobody gave a shit. But of course I wasn't in school in the uptight US of A.

For a start I would have said that, in general, teachers should respect the age limit placed on a film.

that is so great , i want to sue also somebody for doing nothing to me,

Gotta love the American Way(tm).

I thought this was another thread about the Eurovision Song Contest... :eek: :p

For a start I would have said that, in general, teachers should respect the age limit placed on a film.

I would say they should act rationally. The fact that an age limit was placed on the film should give them pause. I'd be pissed if they showed Talladega Nights to my 9-year-old nephew even though he's very mature for his age and the movie is mild in both sex and violence. I'd be pissed because there is simply no excuse for a movie marked openly that it's meant for older children being shown to children younger than that without seeking permission. Oh, and because he'd definitely be scarred by the exposure to NASCAR.

And, yes, you're darn tooting that they should ask permission for watching Clockwork Orange. (I'd likely give it, but that's still my decision.)

I would say they should act rationally. The fact that an age limit was placed on the film should give them pause. I'd be pissed if they showed Talladega Nights to my 9-year-old nephew even though he's very mature for his age and the movie is mild in both sex and violence. I'd be pissed because there is simply no excuse for a movie marked openly that it's meant for older children being shown to children younger than that without seeking permission. Oh, and because he'd definitely be scarred by the exposure to NASCAR.

And, yes, you're darn tooting that they should ask permission for watching Clockwork Orange. (I'd likely give it, but that's still my decision.)

when you put your kids into government schools you give up some of your parental rights, that's just fact.

If you don't want to give up those rights, you shouldn't put them into government schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis

It may not have been the fact that gay sex was depicted but that sex of any sort was

If that's the case why are so many whining about the gay "agenda" to "indoctrinate" children into the "gay lifestyle?" Come on, we all know that conservative christians hate sex on TV, but they hate gay sex even more. It's not inplausible that if it was just a movie showing some *other* kind of sex, little miss muffit and her parents wouldn't be so "traumatized."

And, yes, you're darn tooting that they should ask permission for watching Clockwork Orange. (I'd likely give it, but that's still my decision.)

Which is a big reason to take issue with this. The teacher decided to bypass the parents altogether and showed questionable material. Also, her statement of "What happens in Mrs Buford's class stays in Mrs Buford's class" implies that she didn't want the students to tell their parents.

This whole situation is highly questionable to me. At worst, the sub is a teacher with an agenda, at best, she's just an idiot. Either way her ability to teach should definitely be called into question.

when you put your kids into government schools you give up some of your parental rights, that's just fact.

If you don't want to give up those rights, you shouldn't put them into government schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis

But surely schools are required to follow the age limits set on films as well

But surely schools are required to follow the age limits set on films as well

Those age limits are typically not actually written in law. They tend to be A: Guidelines for parents, and B: A self-enforced method of doing providing A without government intervention. When the theatre doesn't let a 16 year old into a Rated R film, it's because the theatre, and the movie industry, are enforcing that rule to avoid government censorship getting involved.

But surely schools are required to follow the age limits set on films as well

required? no. I think they should, but then again I think a lot of things.

required? no. I think they should, but then again I think a lot of things.

Hmm I had just assumed that would be the case. Strange.

when you put your kids into government schools you give up some of your parental rights, that's just fact.

If you don't want to give up those rights, you shouldn't put them into government schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis

You realize that you just offered a link that says that government schools have less power than private institutions, no? They do take on some parental rights, rights necessary for order and education. The right to show sexually explicit material to 12-year-olds is not one of them. If a teacher is going to do anything that I might find questionable and that I wouldn't reasonably expect them to do, they require permission. It's the reason for permission slips.

Which is a big reason to take issue with this. The teacher decided to bypass the parents altogether and showed questionable material. Also, her statement of "What happens in Mrs Buford's class stays in Mrs Buford's class" implies that she didn't want the students to tell their parents.

This whole situation is highly questionable to me. At worst, the sub is a teacher with an agenda, at best, she's just an idiot. Either way her ability to teach should definitely be called into question.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/29/MNGF2KR9R07.DTL

"Schools cannot be expected to accommodate the personal, moral or religious concerns of every parent,'' Judge Stephen Reinhardt said in the 3-0 ruling.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/29/MNGF2KR9R07.DTL

"Schools cannot be expected to accommodate the personal, moral or religious concerns of every parent,'' Judge Stephen Reinhardt said in the 3-0 ruling.
And it's also to note then that it seems to be this one single family (one with a history) filing grievances, not every family.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/29/MNGF2KR9R07.DTL

"Schools cannot be expected to accommodate the personal, moral or religious concerns of every parent,'' Judge Stephen Reinhardt said in the 3-0 ruling.

You're right, they can't. As stated before, that's what permission slips are for.

The school at the very least had the responsibility to notify the parents that they would be showing an R-rated film. I don't care if it's a Clockwork Orange, Brokeback Mountain, Saving Private Ryan, etc. The fact that I can't think of a single way showing Brokeback Mountain could be related to the cirriculum of an 8th grade class only compounds the problem.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/29/MNGF2KR9R07.DTL

"Schools cannot be expected to accommodate the personal, moral or religious concerns of every parent,'' Judge Stephen Reinhardt said in the 3-0 ruling.

This isn't about personal, moral or religious concerns. It's rated R. That's not a personal rating. This a national rating. It says that in order for one to view the movie parental permission should be obtained. To suggest, that upholding this is personal is to suggest that I own the MPAA.

And it's also to note then that it seems to be this one single family (one with a history) filing grievances, not every family.

I think they just want a half million dollars.

How many people actually objected to the movie is not the point.
No, I'm pretty sure that's entirely my point.

To suggest the teacher did not make a collosally stupid decision here is simply ludicrous.
I'm not disagreeing. And it was a substitute teacher. But to assert that it isn't a personal problem of this single family (who raised hell 2 years ago when they read a book with curse words in it), is as equally ludicrous.

And it's also to note then that it seems to be this one single family (one with a history) filing grievances, not every family.

How many people actually objected to the movie is not the point. That would be subjecting to the school to personal standards. The point is that the only national organization we use for determining what age a movie is appropriate for, an organization whose rulings are respected across the country by movie theaters and the like, an organization because of voluntary universal participation precludes the need for government age appropriate ratings, determined this movie to be appropriate for adults and people who have parental permission.

To suggest the teacher did not make a collosally stupid decision here is simply ludicrous.

How many people actually objected to the movie is not the point. That would be subjecting to the school to personal standards. The point is that the only national organization we use for determining what age a movie is appropriate for, an organization whose rulings are respected across the country by movie theaters and the like, an organization because of voluntary universal participation precludes the need for government age appropriate ratings, determined this movie to be appropriate for adults and people who have parental permission.

To suggest the teacher did not make a collosally stupid decision here is simply ludicrous.

of course she made a stupid decision, she probably won't be held responsible for it though... because she probably had the legal right to do so.

of course she made a stupid decision, she probably won't be held responsible for it though... because she probably had the legal right to do so.

She's a substitute teacher--way low on the food chain. She'll never be hired for that position in the Chicago school system again.

of course she made a stupid decision, she probably won't be held responsible for it though... because she probably had the legal right to do so.

The only "right" she has is to teach the curriculum. Teachers have a responsiblity to adhere to the curriculum AND a responsibility to involve parents when delving into territory that is clearly both outside the curriculum and what a parent can reasonably expect for the children to experience at school. There is an agreement between parents and schools, a contract. This action violated that contract.

Out of curiosity, if showng this movie was her "right", then what movie wouldn't be allowed? Can I show Scarface? Showgirls? 9 1/2 weeks? Final Destination? The Last Temptation of Christ?

Seriously, when did doing whatever the hell they want become a teacher's "right"?

You know what sucks. I hate when people appear to be on my side of the argument but can't stop saying things as absurd as this. It's the simulated sex part that is the problem. Your bigotry really has nothing to do with whether this is right or wrong. If it had been heterosexual it would be equally wrong and I challenge you to show otherwise.

Never mind. I don't challenge you to show otherwise. I challenge you to simply stop speaking so I don't sound like I agree with this nonsense.
Here's a suggestion, just declare that you are not in complete agreement with so-and-so.

Isn't a teacher the legal guardian, during school time....according to the supreme court yeah. which is why my kids don't go to public school (well, one of the reasons)??? can you find that ruling for me? I can't seem to locate it... because as a Legal Guardian, that allows alot of power in the legal system. up to and including consenting for medical procedures. I know they are considered more Chaperones or Temporary caretakers, but this is the first time I'm hearing that they are Legal Guardians.

Clockwork Orange is not Brokeback Mountain. There's some kind of educational value in Clockwork Orange, I don't see the same in Brokeback Mountain.
ah, but Clockwork Orange was Rated X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-rated) and withdrawn from Distribution in the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_%28film%29). :p

why fire the sub? technically, the sub isn't hired by the school, but just holds the teaching credentials and actually is part of a pool that schools in the area can call upon when they need. so the school really cannot fire the sub, just not call her again. that's why the artical also specifically mentions that they are involving the principal. Now, pulling her credentials may be harsh, but it should definately be noted on her record.

Should the lawsuit go through? I say yes, not because a child was scarred for watching Simulated Gay Sex, not because the grandparents are being seen as religious fanatics, but because the substitute teacher overstepped her bounds by 1) showing an R rated film to underage children without obtaining permission from the children's parents/legal guardians, and 2) attempted to keep the children from telling, "What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class"

ah, but Clockwork Orange was Rated X (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-rated) and withdrawn from Distribution in the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_%28film%29). :p

I also said that I'd have as much problem with a school showing that as I do this. If they decide to show it as part of the cirriculum I'd want to know about it beforehand

why fire the sub? technically, the sub isn't hired by the school, but just holds the teaching credentials and actually is part of a pool that schools in the area can call upon when they need. so the school really cannot fire the sub, just not call her again. that's why the artical also specifically mentions that they are involving the principal. Now, pulling her credentials may be harsh, but it should definately be noted on her record.

You're right, missed the part about her being a sub when I first posted.

Should the lawsuit go through? I say yes, not because a child was scarred for watching Simulated Gay Sex, not because the grandparents are being seen as religious fanatics, but because the substitute teacher overstepped her bounds by 1) showing an R rated film to underage children without obtaining permission from the children's parents/legal guardians, and 2) attempted to keep the children from telling, "What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class"

The lawsuit, as it stands, I think is rubbish. I'm sure there could be some liability to the school in some way because of this, but "psychological distress" doesn't seem right.

She's a substitute teacher--way low on the food chain. She'll never be hired for that position in the Chicago school system again.

I agree. I think this pretty much ended that option. And, frankly, I think it should have. This is so grievious as to be impossible to label as an error (assuming it happened as described in the article).

I agree. I think this pretty much ended that option. And, frankly, I think it should have. This is so grievious as to be impossible to label as an error (assuming it happened as described in the article).
No point assuming anything based on the article considering the crackpots are the only source.

Thanks for the reference.
when you put your kids into government schools you give up some of your parental rights, that's just fact.

If you don't want to give up those rights, you shouldn't put them into government schools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis
The term in loco parentis, Latin for "in the place of a parent", refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent. Originally derived from British common law, it is applied as a broad provision allowing such institutions to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit, allowing what would otherwise be considered violations of the students' civil liberties. Cheadle Hulme School's ethos is based around this. not all, but some of the functions and responsiblities, so In Loco Parentis is not the same as Legal Guardian as indicated by Parental/Guardian consent forms needed for excursions and other activities.

and the second part is to protect the institution of cries of violating the student's civil liberies... whatever they are now...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/29/MNGF2KR9R07.DTL

"Schools cannot be expected to accommodate the personal, moral or religious concerns of every parent,'' Judge Stephen Reinhardt said in the 3-0 ruling.

yep. but also note earlier in the article...

Parents had consented to the survey in advance after being told of its overall nature but had not reviewed specific questions. so yes, I agree that the schools cannot be expected to accommodate the [various] concerns of every parent, but the parents were informed that a survey would be handed out and the purpose and nature of the survey was known.

You know... I thought that the film had to first be okay'd by the schoolboard as watchable in school before it was showed. IF that was the case than the school board should also be held responsible if they actually let that film pass.

personaly i think that gays can do as they please, its not my eternal future at stake and im not god so its not my place to judge,:eek:

so yes, I agree that the schools cannot be expected to accommodate the [various] concerns of every parent, but the parents were informed that a survey would be handed out and the purpose and nature of the survey was known.

a survey that asked first graders how often they "touched their private parts"

I also said that I'd have as much problem with a school showing that as I do this. If they decide to show it as part of the cirriculum I'd want to know about it beforehand I think you'ld be hard pressed to find any parent who would disagree here.

The lawsuit, as it stands, I think is rubbish. I'm sure there could be some liability to the school in some way because of this, but "psychological distress" doesn't seem right.but Psychological Distress is like Emotial Distress. the magic lawsuit key. :D

(who's reminded of the other lawsuit about the kids who "lost sleep" over the porn mags they found in a supermarket shopping cart?)



if they can show that the child was Psychologically... stressed... then they have a case. And usually a Child Psychologist would beable to prove that without the need of putting the child on the stand.

however, the defense can also have their Child Psychologist examine their child and put their findings against the Prosecution's

No point assuming anything based on the article considering the crackpots are the only source.

Hey, if one side doesn't want to tell their story, then they should expect that we will judge based on the information we have. But, hey, if you want to say since the one side is acting guilty we should treat them like they're innocent, I can't force you to excercise reason.

It happened in a public school. It's public information. This isn't a privacy issue so their reluctance to tell the truth, their version of what happened, suggests they recognize that the truth exposes them in some way.

Which is a big reason to take issue with this. The teacher decided to bypass the parents altogether and showed questionable material. Also, her statement of "What happens in Mrs Buford's class stays in Mrs Buford's class" implies that she didn't want the students to tell their parents.

This whole situation is highly questionable to me. At worst, the sub is a teacher with an agenda, at best, she's just an idiot. Either way her ability to teach should definitely be called into question.Why is BM questionable material? Does is promote genocide?

Why is BM questionable material? Does is promote genocide?

It contains homosexual material.

Exposure to homosexual material = children turned into liberal god-hating sinning homos.

DUH! ;)

personaly i think that gays can do as they please, its not my eternal future at stake and im not god so its not my place to judge,:eek:This is not about gays as such. It's about watching movies about gays. And "psychological distress" (in other words: made up crap) coming from it.

It contains homosexual material.

Exposure to homosexual material = children turned into liberal god-hating sinning homos.And that's the worst in oh so holy and chosen seed America. Even worse than needlessly starting wars overseas...

a survey that asked first graders how often they "touched their private parts"

yep. I do wonder about the answers they might recieve tho...

"Everytime I go to the bathroom and when I take a bath."
"is putting on pants touching them?"
"I dunno..."
and my favorite... "Why?"

but at least, I am forwarned to ask to look at the survey before I give consent.

Also, there is no guarentee that the survey was well written and designed. if they had ONE set of questions for each grade...

Why is BM questionable material? Does is promote genocide?

It contains sexual content among other things. Personally I take a greater issue with the fairly explicit scenes with the ladies. It also glorifies two men who are cheating on their wives and one who essentially abandons his children. While in the context of a discussion with me, I'd be comfortable showing this movie to my 12-year-old child, I would not allow for a school to show it behind my back, openly encouraging my child to hide it from me.

It's questionable material simply by the fact that it's rated for children older than group it was shown to. In fact, it's not rated for children at all, but for adults.

It contains homosexual material.

Exposure to homosexual material = children turned into liberal god-hating sinning homos.

DUH! ;)

Hmmm... interesting that I think it was questionable material and I applaud the movie and support equal civil rights for all human beings.

Could it possibly be that not everything is appropriate for children of any age? I don't need for my children to see Jake G sucking on Anne H's tits, unless through some magic of time Jake is an infant who is breastfeeding.

of course she made a stupid decision, she probably won't be held responsible for it though... because she probably had the legal right to do so.

substitute teachers are at will employment. They can fire her because they didn't like the color of her shoes.

Moreover I would be very careful in your comment, it is a far cry from "schools can not be responsive to every single belief of every parent" to "a school can do whatever they want to the kids while they're in school"

In loco parentis does not extend NEAR that far. For example. A parent has the right to physically discipline her child. You think that a teacher has the legal right to put little suzzy over her leg and spank her? What EXACTLY do you think would happen if she did?

A teacher acting in the place of the parent does not have the full authority of the parent. Not even close.

yep. I do wonder about the answers they might recieve tho...

"Everytime I go to the bathroom and when I take a bath."
"is putting on pants touching them?"
"I dunno..."
and my favorite... "Why?"

but at least, I am forwarned to ask to look at the survey before I give consent.

Also, there is no guarentee that the survey was well written and designed. if they had ONE set of questions for each grade...What does touch really mean? Aren't genitals parts of the human body and thus constantly in touch with the rest of the body? What kind of question is that? And aimed at what? Don't Americans want a kid to have an anatomy?

What does touch really mean? Aren't genitals parts of the human body and thus constantly in touch with the rest of the body? What kind of question is that? And aimed at what? Don't Americans want a kid to have an anatomy?

I think its pretty obvious what they mean by touch. A kid isn't going to start thinking about it in terms other than with their hands really

I think its pretty obvious what they mean by touch. A kid isn't going to start thinking about it in terms other than with their hands reallyAnd why would anybody ask such silly questions? Why would a kid particularly remember touching any of his/her own body parts? Aren't such questions saying a lot more about the mindsets of those who ask than any kid's answer could say about the kid?

It contains sexual content among other things. Personally I take a greater issue with the fairly explicit scenes with the ladies. It also glorifies two men who are cheating on their wives and one who essentially abandons his children. While in the context of a discussion with me, I'd be comfortable showing this movie to my 12-year-old child, I would not allow for a school to show it behind my back, openly encouraging my child to hide it from me.

It's questionable material simply by the fact that it's rated for children older than group it was shown to. In fact, it's not rated for children at all, but for adults.

Hmmm... interesting that I think it was questionable material and I applaud the movie and support equal civil rights for all human beings.

Could it possibly be that not everything is appropriate for children of any age? I don't need for my children to see Jake G sucking on Anne H's tits, unless through some magic of time Jake is an infant who is breastfeeding.

Thanks Jocabia, I knew leaving for lunch would leave me open to strawmen attacks. Though I could care less about the "cheating on their wives" and "abandoning his children" parts of the movie. Morals are one thing, showing a movie that has been noted for hetro- and homo- sexual material to a group of 12 year olds is another.

yep. I do wonder about the answers they might recieve tho...

"Everytime I go to the bathroom and when I take a bath."
"is putting on pants touching them?"
"I dunno..."
and my favorite... "Why?"

but at least, I am forwarned to ask to look at the survey before I give consent.

Also, there is no guarentee that the survey was well written and designed. if they had ONE set of questions for each grade...

there was no way for the parents to look at the survey, they were just told there would be a survey about "exposure to trauma in early life" they weren't told what the questions were, and when they found out they were told by the supreme court that they didn't "have the fundamental right to choose what information about sex was provided to their children by the school"

Indeed, parents “do not have a fundamental
[due process] right generally to direct how a public school
teaches their child.” Id. (quoting Blau v. Fort Thomas Pub.
Sch. Dist., 401 F.3d 381, 395 (6th Cir. 2005)).



I am still looking for the actual judgment.....

Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit wrote that parents relinquish their parental rights at the schoolhouse door.

http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=1173


Our opinion holds in essence that the Constitution does not
afford parents a substantive due process or privacy right to
control through the federal courts the information that public
schools make available to their children.

you can download the whole thing here. (http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&CID=487&DID=37241)

And why would anybody ask such silly questions? Why would a kid particularly remember touching any of his/her own body parts? Aren't such questions saying a lot more about the mindsets of those who ask than any kid's answer could say about the kid?

That I agree with. I doubt I could tell you as a 32-year-old how often I touch my private parts. It's probably hundreds of times a day, but trying to actually pin that within even a single order of magnitude is difficult.

Anyway if the movie JUST depicted gays, that would be one thing, but like I said: it's rated R, which is very important, and it teaches zip. It would like showing Titanic in a class, except even Titanic is at least build around an historical happening, and is not rated R
It's rated R because there are gay people in it. Probably wouldn't have pulled higher than PG-13 if it was about a man and a woman.

It's rated R because there are gay people in it. Probably wouldn't have pulled higher than PG-13 if it was about a man and a woman.

I don't agree. Please name a PG-13 movie that has such graphic sexual material in it? The scene with Jake and Anne is pretty hot and heavy. It was no more or less explicit than Fatal Attraction which also garnered an R rating.

It's rated R because there are gay people in it. Probably wouldn't have pulled higher than PG-13 if it was about a man and a woman.

I guess the nudity and sex scenes had nothing to do w/ the rating then?

Thanks Jocabia, I knew leaving for lunch would leave me open to strawmen attacks. Though I could care less about the "cheating on their wives" and "abandoning his children" parts of the movie. Morals are one thing, showing a movie that has been noted for hetro- and homo- sexual material to a group of 12 year olds is another.Well, 12 is the age when kids start having sex anyways... or at least start playing around differently than they used to earlier in their lives... :)

It's rated R because there are gay people in it. Probably wouldn't have pulled higher than PG-13 if it was about a man and a woman.

The hetero sex scenes alone would warrant an R rating.

Well, 12 is the age when kids start having sex anyways...

Proving what, exactly?

I guess the nudity and sex scenes had nothing to do w/ the rating then?Barney is nude all the time... and surely more damaging to kids than gay sex....

Barney is nude all the time...

That made me laugh.

Idiot sub...if the students are 12, she can't even show pg-13 without parental notification, let alone R-rated.

I watched one of those shitty 1970's Romeo and Juliet movies in school

can I get trauma money? (after all its not only crap but involves a 12 year old running off with a much older guy:eek:)

Why is BM questionable material? Does is promote genocide?

It contains homosexual material.

Exposure to homosexual material = children turned into liberal god-hating sinning homos.

DUH! ;)

Let's be fair--there's more than just a single gay sex scene in this film. There are two scenes where Ledger and Gyllenhall are having sex with their respective wives, one of them involves some major nudity and the other turns into what is potentially spousal rape. It's an adult movie, and the teacher has a responsibility to check with parents first before showing it. She made a stupid decision.

they were told by the supreme court

....um

Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit

Ninth Circuit. Not Supreme Court.

What does touch really mean? Aren't genitals parts of the human body and thus constantly in touch with the rest of the body? What kind of question is that? And aimed at what? Don't Americans want a kid to have an anatomy? "Mommy, my Genitals are touching me again!" :D

there was no way for the parents to look at the survey, they were just told there would be a survey about "exposure to trauma in early life" they weren't told what the questions were, and when they found out they were told by the supreme court that they didn't "have the fundamental right to choose what information about sex was provided to their children by the school" maybe, but this section of the article...
Parents had consented to the survey in advance after being told of its overall nature but had not reviewed specific questions. the survey was already formed and ready. did any parent think to ask to look at the questions? if I was told no I couldn't, and especially if it's touching on the psychological aspects of my child, I would say no, don't give it to my child.

I am still looking for the actual judgment.....

Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit wrote that parents relinquish their parental rights at the schoolhouse door.

http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=1173

parents have no constitutional right to object to psychological sex surveys given to children as young as seven. query... isn't the general age of 1st graders five or six?

and yes, they cannot object because they gave their consent.

now, I don't know if this is the fault of the article but this looks odd to me...
According to Reinhardt, one of the most reversed judges in the county, public schools have the right to administer sex instruction to any children, at any time and in any manner, notwithstanding the objections of their parents. how is a survey to investigate childhood trauma fall into the catagory of sex instruction?

oh and the last line is that the case is under review... I wonder if the US Supreme Court finally got to it...

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m209/gswelcome/statingtheobvious.jpg


Clearly this tells us everything we need to know about this case and why the kid was traumatized.

there was no way for the parents to look at the survey, they were just told there would be a survey about "exposure to trauma in early life" they weren't told what the questions were, and when they found out they were told by the supreme court that they didn't "have the fundamental right to choose what information about sex was provided to their children by the school"

Indeed, parents “do not have a fundamental
[due process] right generally to direct how a public school
teaches their child.” Id. (quoting Blau v. Fort Thomas Pub.
Sch. Dist., 401 F.3d 381, 395 (6th Cir. 2005)).



I am still looking for the actual judgment.....

Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit wrote that parents relinquish their parental rights at the schoolhouse door.

http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=1173


Our opinion holds in essence that the Constitution does not
afford parents a substantive due process or privacy right to
control through the federal courts the information that public
schools make available to their children.

you can download the whole thing here. (http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&CID=487&DID=37241)

Isn't the Ninth Circuit just peachy?

Ninth Circuit. Not Supreme Court.

mea maxima culpa

*kills herself*

I wonder if the US Supreme Court finally got to it...

Declined to hear it.

US Supreme Court certiorari denied

One should let the 12-year-old girl explain the meaning of "homosexual". If she can't explain in her own words what it means, then she can't have "psychological distress" or be "traumatized by the movie" or have to "undergo psychological treatment and counseling."
Then it's just the parents attempt to make money out of it. I would suspect the traumatization to be an effect of the kid's upbringing anyways. The parents definitely are a waste of oxygen if they have kids that can be traumatized thusly.

mea maxima culpa


Looking at this case, it appears that there was a procedural appeal back to the 9th circuit, after the ruling you quoted. The ruling was affirmed. You can find the 9th circuit ruling affirming the ruling you quoted, and for reasons given, here (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/966A73E8103317D888257170007C7F87/$file/0356499.pdf?openelement).

I am still looking for the actual judgment.....

Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit wrote that parents relinquish their parental rights at the schoolhouse door.

http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=1173


Our opinion holds in essence that the Constitution does not
afford parents a substantive due process or privacy right to
control through the federal courts the information that public
schools make available to their children.

you can download the whole thing here. (http://www.nsba.org/site/doc_cosa.asp?TRACKID=&CID=487&DID=37241)

That judge is provably wrong. Legally, can a school authorize an elective surgery for a child? Nope. Can a parent? Yep Can I, as a teacher, teach Creation to little Johnny? Nope. Can a parent? Yep. Can a teacher pierce my child's ears? Nope. Can I? Yep. Can I give my child permission to go to the dance? Can I give my child permission to go to the Dells for a field trip?

They haven't given the schools free reign. They have very limited abilities. Those that would be expected of any government caregiver. They are not guardians and do not have the rights that go with such a position. Some random judge can say otherwise, while making a ruling that doesn't actually uphold that claim (this ruling does not give schools guardian rights), but reality doesn't match the quote.

Declined to hear it.

US Supreme Court certiorari denied

ah, and the problem is this...

Appellants are parents of schoolchildren in the Palmdale School District. Their complaint in the district court alleged, inter alia, that the school district violated their fundamental right “to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs” by administering... which is not a denial of parental rights and responsiblities, but denying the parents control over the school's curriculum. something I agree with.

but it doesn't remove the need of consent nor the legal rights or responsiblity for school activities.

The movie carries an R rating. No matter what the content, it was not appropriate to show it in school to a group of 12 year olds.

Looking at this case, it appears that there was a procedural appeal back to the 9th circuit, after the ruling you quoted. The ruling was affirmed. You can find the 9th circuit ruling affirming the ruling you quoted, and for reasons given, here (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/966A73E8103317D888257170007C7F87/$file/0356499.pdf?openelement).

After reading it, it should be noted that they make it clear they were only judging on the merits of the case. They state clearly it is an issue for the schoolboard to determine what is and is not allowed in the classroom in terms of information within the boungs of the first amendment and that state law applies. They hold simply that the Constitution cannot be applied to the issue of their complaint. That's all.

*kills herself*

*Casts Rez*

I would also like to note that in C. N. v. Ridgewood Bd. of Educ., 430 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. N.J. 2005), the Third Circuit has already rejected the holding in the case you cite.

So this far from national law, and another circuit has already come out in the other way, specifically stating

we do not hold, as did the panel in Fields v. Palmdale School District, that the right of parents under the Meyer-Pierce rubric does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door.

Id. at 185 n.26 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

So it would appear that at least one circuit court has actually expressly stated that they are rejecting the very language you took issue with.

*Casts Rez*

*dispels*

*Casts True Rez*

Cheapo.

The ratings system is bullshit. It was completely acceptable to view for a 12 year old.

If that's the case why are so many whining about the gay "agenda" to "indoctrinate" children into the "gay lifestyle?" Come on, we all know that conservative christians hate sex on TV, but they hate gay sex even more. It's not inplausible that if it was just a movie showing some *other* kind of sex, little miss muffit and her parents wouldn't be so "traumatized."

Are any of those people the parents of this child?

After reading it, it should be noted that they make it clear they were only judging on the merits of the case. They state clearly it is an issue for the schoolboard to determine what is and is not allowed in the classroom in terms of information within the boungs of the first amendment and that state law applies. They hold simply that the Constitution cannot be applied to the issue of their complaint. That's all.

which, as I said, has already been rejected by the 3rd circuit. However you do make a very good point.

The parents in THIS issue were claiming a violation of their constitutional rights. I'll say that again because it's important. They claimed a violation of their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

The court in this matter said no, what the shcool does doesn't violate your constitutional rights.

That, however, says NOTHING what so ever about what may or may not be applicable under STATE law, or some other federal statute. It strictly means that it did not violate the constitution. Very important distinction to be made here.

This ruling DID NOT say the schools have a constitutional right to do whatever they want. It said that parents, in some circumstances, do not have the constitutional right to object. Extremely important difference.

*dispels*

*Casts True Rez*

Cheapo.
hey, i'm just not that high level yet. :(

*Casts Rez*

hands Smunkeeville a power word death scroll
...? what? maybe she has a right to die...

I don't agree. Please name a PG-13 movie that has such graphic sexual material in it? The scene with Jake and Anne is pretty hot and heavy. It was no more or less explicit than Fatal Attraction which also garnered an R rating.
Oh, it had R rated straight content? I see. And little missy wasn't traumatized by that at all? I see no suggestion that was an issue in the suit.

The ratings system is bullshit. It was completely acceptable to view for a 12 year old.

Are you serious? I'm twice that age and I can't watch that movie. And it has nothing to do with gay sex or two men kissing or doing it or whatever.

The simple truth of the matter is - that movie is the single most boring piece of bovine waste product I have ever seen. I could barely stay awake. I only made it through 45 minutes of it before I decided that gnawing my own leg off might be a better option. And they show it to 12-year-olds? Jeez, that substitute deserves to be sued for all the gnawed-off 12-year-old legs.

Are any of those people the parents of this child?

Possibly. The article does a pretty good job of leaving the reader to make that particular jump themselves.

To me, just because the suers are probably conservative Christian types doesn't make what the sub did "ok"

hey, i'm just not that high level yet. :(

You could've purchased the services of a priest to perform the spell. Hence why I called you a cheapo.

Also: where the heck is Lief? We're waiting for the next update, but it's been almost a week.

/threadjack

Oh, it had R rated straight content? I see. And little missy wasn't traumatized by that at all? I see no suggestion that was an issue in the suit.

Where is it suggested that the homosexual sex was the issue?

Possibly. The article does a pretty good job of leaving the reader to make that particular jump themselves.

To me, just because the suers are probably conservative Christian types doesn't make what the sub did "ok"

But its just an assumption and nothing else

iMerge.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Forum Moderator

Oh, it had R rated straight content? I see. And little missy wasn't traumatized by that at all? I see no suggestion that was an issue in the suit.

And I see no suggestion that the homosexual content was an issue either.

But its just an assumption and nothing else

Exactly.

Oh, it had R rated straight content? I see. And little missy wasn't traumatized by that at all? I see no suggestion that was an issue in the suit.

Oh, the grandparents are tools. that doesn't excuse the actions of the teacher, which I find much more concerning. Goofball parents exist. Nothing we can do about that. Bad teachers exist. I'm happy to encourage them to be removed.

You could've purchased the services of a priest to perform the spell. Hence why I called you a cheapo.
/threadjack

or you could have gotten a scroll or rod of rez

or you could have gotten a scroll or rod of rez

Yes, but those still cost gold.

And I could simply cast it.

You could've purchased the services of a priest to perform the spell. Hence why I called you a cheapo.

Also: where the heck is Lief? We're waiting for the next update, but it's been almost a week.

/threadjack oh, like I know who here can cast true rez..
:rolleyes: ;)

as for Lief? dunno, but if you want, you can take a try at paranoia.

oh, like I know who here can cast true rez..
:rolleyes: ;)

as for Lief? dunno, but if you want, you can take a try at paranoia.

I can. I'm a level 20 priest of Selfishbastardism.

Paranoia?

I can. I'm a level 20 priest of Selfishbastardism.

Paranoia?

I assumed that your reference to Leif was about his thing in my forum...

just offering other options while waiting for leif to return.

I assumed that your reference to Leif was about his thing in my forum...

just offering other options while waiting for leif to return.

Oh. I hadn't noticed you'd set up a game there. I'll make a char later tonight.

Has anyone else signed up?

The ratings system is bullshit. It was completely acceptable to view for a 12 year old.

In your opinion, not in the opinion of her grandparents.

I told them it was against our faith.
^^^ That's where it suggested to me that it was about the homosexuality.

^^^ That's where it suggested to me that it was about the homosexuality.

Hmmm didn't see that before. Maybe because of the thread merge. Sorry

Oh. I hadn't noticed you'd set up a game there. I'll make a char later tonight.

Has anyone else signed up?
some... one... but read the OoC stuff carefully. Paranoia is... different. and from here on I suggest posting questions there so we can end this threadjack. :D

^^^ That's where it suggested to me that it was about the homosexuality.

The Christian faith has tons to say about unfaithfulness to one's wife and sex outside of marriage. I think you're reading what you want to see.

some... one... but read the OoC stuff carefully. Paranoia is... different. and from here on I suggest posting questions there so we can end this threadjack. :D

Guys, stop it. Seriously, this is a big threadjack. Take it elsewhere, please.

The only way they will win the lawsuit is if the attack the the point that it is an R rated movie. Other than that, its a stupid plan. The sub will probably just be fired and the school will have to pay for 'medical' expenses. Ill be very, very suprised if even that happens.

And since when do cases that seem to belong on Judge Judy make headlines???

Guys, stop it. Seriously, this is a big threadjack. Take it elsewhere, please.
err... that's what I suggested in the post you quoted.
yessir... apologies all. :)

My topic was better, you suck.

Guys, stop it. Seriously, this is a big threadjack. Take it elsewhere, please.

Sorry, we're done.

And I can see where you're coming from on this, but I honestly don't think that he's reading too much into it that isn't there. I agree that the sub should've gotten a slip from parents for them to watch it, but the case should still be thrown out.

^^^ That's where it suggested to me that it was about the homosexuality.

That still doesn't make the sub's actions defensible.

It is very obvious that the movie is not responsible for her problems. Parents who over shelter there Children might be.

Sorry, we're done.

And I can see where you're coming from on this, but I honestly don't think that he's reading too much into it that isn't there. I agree that the sub should've gotten a slip from parents for them to watch it, but the case should still be thrown out.
unfortunatly, since it did happen at the school, the school is also responsible. that's why schools insist that any and all visitors check into the office first.

granted they can't patrol each and every classroom every hour school is in session but they are still responsible.

That still doesn't make the sub's actions defensible.

now why do you think the sub's action were wrong?

It is very obvious that the movie is not responsible for her problems. Parents who over shelter there Children might be.

you mean "parents who try to be parents" are the problem?

now why do you think the sub's action were wrong?

For starters, the movie is rated R. No one under 17 is allowed to see it without a parent or guardian and the sub does not fit either of those descriptions.

On a more personal note and related to the above, the movie contains explicit sexual content (both hetero- and homo-). I don't think that's appropriate for a 12 year old audience.

Further, the sub did it without notifying the parents, denying them any say in the matter, and her comment of "What happens in Ms Buford's class..." strikes me as she wanted to keep the parents out of the loop intentionally.

Finally, I can't think of any way that Brokeback Mountain could be linked to an 8th grade cirriculum.

For starters, the movie is rated R. No one under 17 is allowed to see it without a parent or guardian and the sub does not fit either of those descriptions.
Pretty sure a teacher of any sort counts as guardian. I don't think they check old people's credentials when escorting young people to R rated movies...

Pretty sure a teacher of any sort counts as guardian. I don't think they check old people's credentials when escorting young people to R rated movies...

The In Loco Parentis laws for schools does not confer Guardianship upon teachers. If they did, permission slips wouldn't be needed.

Teachers gain some of the parental rights and responsiblities necessary, but they don't gain Guardianship.

Finally, I can't think of any way that Brokeback Mountain could be linked to an 8th grade cirriculum.

Grade 8 is a tad bit late for sex-ed - I agree.

you mean "parents who try to be parents" are the problem?

Not necessarily, "parents who try to be parents and fail at being good parents" would also fall under the quoted posters umbrella

Not to say I agree just saying that if the kid truly needed psychological treatment after seeing this movie I would find it hard to put the blame on the movie.

Sure the movie was the initiation factor but something was a long more wrong in that household or with the child before this movie rolled around, which is also shown in their past behavior over literature.

Finally, I can't think of any way that Brokeback Mountain could be linked to an 8th grade cirriculum.

In my experience, movies that substitute teachers show rarely have anything to do with the curriculum, unless it was a planned absence and the teacher of the class left the video to keep the students busy. I've been in classes where subs put in everything from A Streetcar Named Desire to Dazed and Confused. In the latter case, it was "hush, hush." This sub probably wanted to watch the movie and figured that doing it while essentially babysitting would be fine - regardless of how inappropriate the movie was for the students being watched.

Grade 8 is a tad bit late for sex-ed - I agree.

In America that's about when the REAL sex ed starts.

You mean in using the word HOW. I can see how you might not recognize the difference given the lack of the A and the T and the added O and the different meaning and all. Sorry. Next time I'll write it in Farsi. Let me know if that helps.

Excuse me, "Teach them how to think about these issues" sure fuckin' sounds like indoctrination. So why don't you get off your idiotic high horse.

Richardson said his granddaughter was traumatized after watching the film, telling him that "They made me watch this bad movie."

Hey, in a health class a while back, I had to watch some shitty made-for-TV movie about drunk driving, but you don't see me bitching about it.

Were they forcibly restrained and made to watch it?

...

It's the Clockwork Orange Anti-Gay Treatment.

...

It's the Clockwork Orange Anti-Gay Treatment.

You win.

Excuse me, "Teach them how to think about these issues" sure fuckin' sounds like indoctrination. So why don't you get off your idiotic high horse.

Then you're not paying attention. You can blame me for your reading issues or you can simply read what I wrote. "How to think" is not the same as "what to think." The difference is not subtle even if you don't recognize it.

It is the role of the school to teach children how to think, how to become thinking adults. It's probably one of the highest functions schooling fulfills, or should.

But, you know what would be better than discussing what I wrote? Swearing and getting upset because you didn't read it. Yay for misunderstanding.

Not necessarily, "parents who try to be parents and fail at being good parents" would also fall under the quoted posters umbrella agreed. and won't argue the point. :)

Not to say I agree just saying that if the kid truly needed psychological treatment after seeing this movie I would find it hard to put the blame on the movie.

Sure the movie was the initiation factor but something was a long more wrong in that household or with the child before this movie rolled around, which is also shown in their past behavior over literature.
of course, you realize that this argument can be used in the "OMG violent movies/video games cause violence in out kids" argument. since you are saying that one event didn't trigger it but constant conditioning over a period of time that was brought to the forefront with one catalyst.

Like playing violent video games, watching violent movies, taking drugs, listenting to rap, etc...

Were they forcibly restrained and made to watch it?I believe the door was closed, and the Adult who was in the position of authority told them "whatever happens in Ms Buford's class stays in Ms Buford's class." which, if accurate, also shows that the sub knew what she was doing was at least questionable.

so while they were not physically restrained, they were not given the option of NOT watching an R rated movie.

so while they were not physically restrained, they were not given the option of NOT watching an R rated movie.

Wow, am I the only one here with eyelids?

Seriously, I think the sub wasn't making the best decision here, but as the facts stand, there's no evidence the kids were actually FORCED to look at the television. And there aren't very many facts at this point, so this debate is vaguely absurd.

I see it slightly different. If the child had been as traumatised as she says I find it difficult to believe (although i'm not denying it is possible at all) that she wouldn't have asked to leave at some point. The statement made by the teacher isn't great but it sounds like she's trying to get the kids to like her by allowing them to see a grown up film. Kind of like being the cool aunt figure

I don't know, plenty of kids are "tramuatized" by the videos of kids getting born in health classes, but that doesn't mean they should stop showing them.

I believe the door was closed, and the Adult who was in the position of authority told them "whatever happens in Ms Buford's class stays in Ms Buford's class." which, if accurate, also shows that the sub knew what she was doing was at least questionable.

so while they were not physically restrained, they were not given the option of NOT watching an R rated movie.

I see it slightly different. If the child had been as traumatised as she says I find it difficult to believe (although i'm not denying it is possible at all) that she wouldn't have asked to leave at some point. The statement made by the teacher isn't great but it sounds like she's trying to get the kids to like her by allowing them to see a grown up film. Kind of like being the cool aunt figure

First, the fact that it was an R-rated movie should definitely be enough to raise some eyebrows at the very least, especially given the fact that there was apparentally no note to the parents, permission slip, etc.

Second, one wonders what class it was taking place in. Brokeback Mountain, I believe, is based on a short story, so in a literature/English class, if they had recently read the story, it would make some sense. One could also argue that it would make sense in the context of a history class, I suppose, although I haven't seen the movie, and am not an expert on the time period, so it may in fact be completely inaccurate.

Third, frankly, if there's any suing to be done here, the kid should be suing her grandfather for raising her in such a way that either naked men or homosexuals, especially on a television screen, could traumatize her. Unlikely, I know, but still...

Fourth, the guy warned the school about the literature they were giving out? He warned them? Is it just me, or does that seem a bit arrogant?

Fifth and finally, at least we all know who's really getting rich off of this- the lawyers and the therapist.

I don't know, plenty of kids are "tramuatized" by the videos of kids getting born in health classes, but that doesn't mean they should stop showing them.

I've never known that to be the case but then I can only speak for the kids I went to school with

Wow, am I the only one here with eyelids?

Seriously, I think the sub wasn't making the best decision here, but as the facts stand, there's no evidence the kids were actually FORCED to look at the television. And there aren't very many facts at this point, so this debate is vaguely absurd.

Oh, come on. That's a ridiculous requirement. If that were the case then I should be allowed to show porn to children since they can close their eyes and cover their ears. Does it occur to anyone that a 12-year-old child didn't anticipate that the teacher was going to be this irresponsible and as such she didn't know there was a problem until after she'd already seen some or all of the relevant parts. How was she supposed to know she needed to close her eyes? And why should a teacher be allowed to show a movie where such a thing is necessary?

I don't know, plenty of kids are "tramuatized" by the videos of kids getting born in health classes, but that doesn't mean they should stop showing them.

They are part of the curriculum and age-appropriate films. Also, the kids know what they are seeing. Unless this teacher said "careful, this movie is very sexual" then I don't think the two are comparable.

They are part of the curriculum and age-appropriate films. Also, the kids know what they are seeing. Unless this teacher said "careful, this movie is very sexual" then I don't think the two are comparable.


Fair enough, but at least back when I had to watch that, some time ago, the only real warnings came from friends and rumors.

Oh, come on. That's a ridiculous requirement. If that were the case then I should be allowed to show porn to children since they can close their eyes and cover their ears. Does it occur to anyone that a 12-year-old child didn't anticipate that the teacher was going to be this irresponsible and as such she didn't know there was a problem until after she'd already seen some or all of the relevant parts. How was she supposed to know she needed to close her eyes? And why should a teacher be allowed to show a movie where such a thing is necessary?

That post was half-jesting, the not-jest part being pointing out that we don't really have much information. Though I will admit I did not make that paticularly clear.

That post was half-jesting, the not-jest part being pointing out that we don't really have much information. Though I will admit I did not make that paticularly clear.

If it was jesting, then it makes sense that I said it was ridiculous. Don't worry, I don't take you too seriously. And I mean that in a very sincere and respectful way. I like that you insert a bit of levity (usually insert).

I LOL at this thread.

Yes you may quote that :D

If it was jesting, then it makes sense that I said it was ridiculous. Don't worry, I don't take you too seriously. And I mean that in a very sincere and respectful way. I like that you insert a bit of levity (usually insert).

I have difficulty taking things seriously.

Wow, am I the only one here with eyelids?

Seriously, I think the sub wasn't making the best decision here, but as the facts stand, there's no evidence the kids were actually FORCED to look at the television. And there aren't very many facts at this point, so this debate is vaguely absurd.oh really?

and have you seen those classrooms? you have a tv on and you have to watch it. or what. sit with your eyes closed and ears plugged up? like that is an option.

think about it. she didn't need to say what she was showing. only that she was showing a movie. (and what kid would rather do schoolwork than watch a movie?)

she closed the doors, meaning that the entire class is watching this movie.

how do you know she gave those students the OPTION of not watching the movie. her statement can be taken two ways. 1) i'm doing something cool, don't let others know because you're special." or 2) I'm doing something wrong, so don't tell anyone or you'ld be in trouble.

Remember, this is a teacher. a posisition that requires a level of trust from the students.

so yes, they we not tied down and forced to watch a movie, but they had their trust, obediance, and naievity used against them to make them watch this movie. that's why most crimes against children has what statement. "the betrayal of their trust." that's why I said Physcially. emotionally, or mentally, it could be seen as being forced (but that's up to the lawyers.) or at least tricked into watching it.


I see it slightly different. If the child had been as traumatised as she says I find it difficult to believe (although i'm not denying it is possible at all) that she wouldn't have asked to leave at some point. The statement made by the teacher isn't great but it sounds like she's trying to get the kids to like her by allowing them to see a grown up film. Kind of like being the cool aunt figure why did the sub make the statement "what happens here stays here"? if she was going to let kids who didn't want to see the film out of the room. especially if another teacher/administrator was to ask that studen "why are you not in class?" so inorder to keep "what happens in that room in that room" it has to be that no one leaves.

also, as a sub, you know she's not staying for long, so why an R-rated film and not a PG one. or even a PG-13. both are still wrong, but better than an R-Rated movie and would supply the "Cool Aunt" image.



and for anyone who might mis-understand. I would be taking this stance even if the movie was "Kill Bill", "Heavy Metal", "Saw" or any other R-Rated movie.

why did the sub make the statement "what happens here stays here"? if she was going to let kids who didn't want to see the film out of the room. especially if another teacher/administrator was to ask that studen "why are you not in class?" so inorder to keep "what happens in that room in that room" it has to be that no one leaves.

May I remind you we have only one side of the story at this point. And once again, the bit about the eyelids was mostly a joke.

That post was half-jesting, the not-jest part being pointing out that we don't really have much information. Though I will admit I did not make that paticularly clear.

if it was in half jest, then I also apologise.

there are alot of things missing... like was it brokeback mountain or some other cowboy movie that was shown and they assumed it was brokeback by the girls description.

however, that is up to the courts and lawyers to follow up on.

May I remind you we have only one side of the story at this point. And once again, the bit about the eyelids was mostly a joke.
yeah, I saw your half jest post after I posted that. Sorry.

how is having Faith make them "Extremely Religous"? Sounds like they had issues before, but never involved the lawyers...

and the nature of the suing isn't on a Religious baises (usually a point that Extremely Religious Parents would sue on.) but on a psychologically damaging one.

My comment was made in jest, but I guess you can say I was 'kidding on the square.' I completely doubt that there was any 'psychological damage' taking place, and believe that this is basically a cash grab for the parents.

However, considering that the only child to suffer from this came from a family that had indoctrinated them with very conservative beliefs, would imply in my mind that it was the parents who were causing the 'psychological damage', and not the film. (Or rather, a combination of the two.)

Of course the parents in this case do not reflect the average person of faith. This is why I used the term 'extreme', that and the previous issues addressed with the school.

And of course, none of this excuses the fact that the teacher was out of line.

if it was in half jest, then I also apologise.

No problem, it wasn't paticularly clear.



there are alot of things missing... like was it brokeback mountain or some other cowboy movie that was shown and they assumed it was brokeback by the girls description.

however, that is up to the courts and lawyers to follow up on.

Wait...they actually aren't sure if it was even Brokeback Mountain?

And does anyone else think "Brokeback Mountain" sounds more then a little dirty, given what it's about?

Wait...they actually aren't sure if it was even Brokeback Mountain?

And does anyone else think "Brokeback Mountain" sounds more then a little dirty, given what it's about?
actually I was reminded of Smunkee's thread about trying to find a movie by only going by her daughter's description.

it ended up being three movies 'merged' into one.

so yes, it's also possible that it might not be Brokeback mountain. Unlikely, but possible. because I'm really having a hard time believing any sensible adult would show an R-Rated movie to 12 yr olds... (not saying it hasn't happened... my first R-Rated film was when I was 12... my mother wanted me to watch the legend of King Arthur (since I was into that at the time.) and practically kicked me out of the room during the... conceiving of Arthur scene. :D after that, she would always review the movies first before insisting chilren watch em.

Um, good sir do you know that to go to an R-rated movie in America, you need to show some I.D.? Or you need to be accompanied by a parent or legal-guardian. This teacher was neither.

I don't live in a tree. I know that.

Um, good sir do you know that to go to an R-rated movie in America, you need to show some I.D.? Or you need to be accompanied by a parent or legal-guardian. This teacher was neither.

In practice, I have seen teens younger than 17, without ID and without a parent or guardian, in R-rated movies.

Are you serious? I'm twice that age and I can't watch that movie. And it has nothing to do with gay sex or two men kissing or doing it or whatever.

The simple truth of the matter is - that movie is the single most boring piece of bovine waste product I have ever seen. I could barely stay awake. I only made it through 45 minutes of it before I decided that gnawing my own leg off might be a better option. And they show it to 12-year-olds? Jeez, that substitute deserves to be sued for all the gnawed-off 12-year-old legs.Oh, I agree with you 100%. I didn't watch it all the way through until the 2nd attempt, and even then I almost fell asleep. My five year old watched it with me both times.

Shut up before I come to your house and light your bra on fire!!!:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: : :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: ::mp5: :mp5: :gundge: :gundge:LOL! .... what?

Shut up before I come to your house and light your bra on fire!!!:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: : :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: ::mp5: :mp5: :gundge: :gundge:
I swear, I think some long time players here are making puppets just to do n00bish first posts.

Shut up before I come to your house and light your bra on fire!!!:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: : :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: ::mp5: :mp5: :gundge: :gundge:

All i have to say about that movie is ....Wow...**I didn't see that comming** lol..i never even finished it.

As for playing it at school...i don't think that should be allowed..BUT that's my opinion..

God, I hope he is. That's can't but help the school. I'm reminded of a line from Shakespeare when I hear him protest.

Methinks the laddy doth protest too much?

Now I can see why my school hands out premission slips to watch movies! :D Of course my school wouldn't show an R rated movie a day in it's life. Though here is another intresting fact, a kid in my school plagerized a poem and it was published in our school's liteary magazine. Now our school is being sued

of course, you realize that this argument can be used in the "OMG violent movies/video games cause violence in out kids" argument. since you are saying that one event didn't trigger it but constant conditioning over a period of time that was brought to the forefront with one catalyst.

Like playing violent video games, watching violent movies, taking drugs, listenting to rap, etc...

Not really. It's more like, "If you tell your kids all the time that violent video games are teh evil and shelter them to the point that they don't know about the world, they might feel traumatized the first time they see one."

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=261971&GT1=7701

The suit claims the 12 year old student

Da hell was this dumbass thinking. 12 year old kids??? This sub should never be allowed to teach again.

Not really. It's more like, "If you tell your kids all the time that violent video games are teh evil and shelter them to the point that they don't know about the world, they might feel traumatized the first time they see one."

This one is making sense. Let's study her more closely.

Why would you suffer physicoligcal ditress after watching a movie about how tough it is being a gay?

Too many people in america like to sue :headbang:

Not really. It's more like, "If you tell your kids all the time that violent video games are teh evil and shelter them to the point that they don't know about the world, they might feel traumatized the first time they see one."
A friend of mine from high school was reared to believe that homosexuality was so evil you could go to hell just for reading about it or seeing a picture of a man kissing a man.

The sad-funny result of this was that she experienced serious anxiety when offered a Pride magazine, even after she'd come out. Even after she came to terms with the fact that she was gay, she still felt uncomfortable looking at pictures of "homosexual activities" (like a gay couple holding hands).

Doctor Who Slaves;12655786']Why would you suffer physicoligcal ditress after watching a movie about how tough it is being a gay?

Too many people in america like to sue :headbang:

For a second post this is pretty good.

And yes I do agree. The movie isn't promoting homosexuality as a life style, it's informing the public. Besides, there are raunchier things out there in terms of movies these days.

For a good idea of this, I suggest watching 'This Film is not yet Rated'. It provides excellent insight into this kind of thing.

It compared "gay" and "straight" movies. Which makes me think that if this teacher had shown a "straight" movie that there would have been no problem but the fact is the teacher showed one that has homosexual material in it.

For a second post this is pretty good.
It compared "gay" and "straight" movies. Which makes me think that if this teacher had shown a "straight" movie that there would have been no problem but the fact is the teacher showed one that has homosexual material in it.

Probably true, which is a problem in and of itself. I don't think a straight movie would've been any more appropriate, it just would've caused less of a firestorm.

For a second post this is pretty good.

And yes I do agree. The movie isn't promoting homosexuality as a life style, it's informing the public. Besides, there are raunchier things out there in terms of movies these days.

For a good idea of this, I suggest watching 'This Film is not yet Rated'. It provides excellent insight into this kind of thing.

It compared "gay" and "straight" movies. Which makes me think that if this teacher had shown a "straight" movie that there would have been no problem but the fact is the teacher showed one that has homosexual material in it.

Which is unfortunate, since the straight sex scenes in this movie were much more graphic and are precisely the reason I think this movie would be completely inappropriate for children.

Which is unfortunate, since the straight sex scenes in this movie were much more graphic and are precisely the reason I think this movie would be completely inappropriate for children.

Exactly. It only reinforces the attitude that gay is bad simply because of religious and social/cultural indoctrination based on unfounded fears that being anything but straight is bad.

But like Telesha pointed out, it would have caused less of a fire storm if any at all.

I believe that this is a case of overreaction based on the nature rather than the rating. It could have been a harmless PG or PG13 movie involving gays and it might have caused more outrage than one with straight material.

Exactly. It only reinforces the attitude that gay is bad simply because of religious and social/cultural indoctrination based on unfounded fears that being anything but straight is bad.

But like Telesha pointed out, it would have caused less of a fire storm if any at all.

I believe that this is a case of overreaction based on the nature rather than the rating. It could have been a harmless PG or PG13 movie involving gays and it might have caused more outrage than one with straight material.

I don't see that we have evidence for that. They were upset about swearing, what would make you think they would be less upset by nudity and sex? All evidence we have suggests they would have been upset by this movie absent the gay scenes. Unless, you're suggesting that swearing is somehow gay.

I think the only overreaction is the lawsuit. This sub did something majorly stupid and technically is guilty of contributing to the deliquency of a minor. The fact that the complaint came from a group that are probably right wing Christian conservatives doesn't lessen the fact that what this sub did was irresponsible and wrong.

Not really. It's more like, "If you tell your kids all the time that violent video games are teh evil and shelter them to the point that they don't know about the world, they might feel traumatized the first time they see one."

Just like forcing them to view the real world before they're ready and in a manner they (the children) are not ready for. you can do just as much damage to others as parents do raising 'sheltered' kids.

A friend of mine from high school was reared to believe that homosexuality was so evil you could go to hell just for reading about it or seeing a picture of a man kissing a man.

The sad-funny result of this was that she experienced serious anxiety when offered a Pride magazine, even after she'd come out. Even after she came to terms with the fact that she was gay, she still felt uncomfortable looking at pictures of "homosexual activities" (like a gay couple holding hands).I've seen examples here on this board where anyone showing a preferrence of not condoning Homosexual activities are labled Homophobe. infact, many times I've been labelled "A raging Homophobe" because I would not say I was for same sex marriage.

same as anyone who doesn't condemn the Iraq war, doesn't insult President Bush, doesn't lower drinking ages, or even shows a hint of being Religious. (exaggerated, I know, but it's there.)

so it's not just the 'sheltered' who take things the extreme and it's just not 'raising a sheltered person' that causes Pyschological distress. teach the child about the real world, but do it at the child's pace, not yours, and definately not some stranger who doesn't know your child. (meaning the substitue teacher.)

Just like forcing them to view the real world before they're ready and in a manner they (the children) are not ready for. you can do just as much damage to others as parents do raising 'sheltered' kids.

No argument here.

I've seen examples here on this board where anyone showing a preferrence of not condoning Homosexual activities are labled Homophobe. infact, many times I've been labelled "A raging Homophobe" because I would not say I was for same sex marriage.

I'm sure you could find a handful of examples like that in this thread alone.

same as anyone who doesn't condemn the Iraq war, doesn't insult President Bush, doesn't lower drinking ages, or even shows a hint of being Religious. (exaggerated, I know, but it's there.)

so it's not just the 'sheltered' who take things the extreme and it's just not 'raising a sheltered person' that causes Pyschological distress. teach the child about the real world, but do it at the child's pace, not yours, and definately not some stranger who doesn't know your child. (meaning the substitue teacher.)

But if you do that, how will you indoctrinate them in the right way?

Though, if the parents won't teach their damn children, I'd rather someone at least tried. But this is hardly the way to do it.

homophobe or not this movie is inappropriate for children of this viewing age. That's the bottom line of this issue. It's not a matter of gay or straight to me. In most schools if you want to show anything above a G ratings teachers are advised to send letters home getting permission. If they wanted to show something like this they should have send home letters for permission to limit their legal culpability. As it is they were completely out of line and this has nothing to do with the gay/straight agenda so to speak.

homophobe or not this movie is inappropriate for children of this viewing age. That's the bottom line of this issue. It's not a matter of gay or straight to me. In most schools if you want to show anything above a G ratings teachers are advised to send letters home getting permission. If they wanted to show something like this they should have send home letters for permission to limit their legal culpability. As it is they were completely out of line and this has nothing to do with the gay/straight agenda so to speak.

Exactly. Too bad no matter what we say some folks will never believe that.

Man.. Brokeback Mountain was such a moving film. I still cry when I think of the ending.. it's a shame that idiots like this kid and her parents are so blinded by bigotry (and greed, apparently) that they can't see what a beautiful movie it is.

Man.. Brokeback Mountain was such a moving film. I still cry when I think of the ending.. it's a shame that idiots like this kid and her parents are so blinded by bigotry (and greed, apparently) that they can't see what a beautiful movie it is.

I rest my case.

I don't see that we have evidence for that. They were upset about swearing, what would make you think they would be less upset by nudity and sex? All evidence we have suggests they would have been upset by this movie absent the gay scenes. Unless, you're suggesting that swearing is somehow gay.
:p You said it not me.

But seriously, I do not see the need for a lawsuit given the amount of television that embraces swearing and a light-attitude towards sex. Sure it's just groping but I've heard swears during prime time television. There are plenty of swears that get thrown around casually when kids are older and they are certainly exposed to a good amount of it in today's music and MTV culture.

I consider swearing a small back burner issue when it's not the colourful type found in NC17 movies. Mild swears are of no real issue.

I believe that if this child's grandparents heard the type of language that caem out of this age group today the girl would be sheltered for life. :D

Why would a twelve year old girl get distressed about a movie dealing with male homosexuality? Because she will be forever left out of the issue?

:p You said it not me.

But seriously, I do not see the need for a lawsuit given the amount of television that embraces swearing and a light-attitude towards sex. Sure it's just groping but I've heard swears during prime time television. There are plenty of swears that get thrown around casually when kids are older and they are certainly exposed to a good amount of it in today's music and MTV culture.

I consider swearing a small back burner issue when it's not the colourful type found in NC17 movies. Mild swears are of no real issue.

I believe that if this child's grandparents heard the type of language that caem out of this age group today the girl would be sheltered for life. :D

That's the truth if I ever heard it.

Why would a twelve year old girl get distressed about a movie dealing with male homosexuality? Because she will be forever left out of the issue?

I think that might actually be the case. But wouldn't she get turned on by that?

I think pretty much everyone agrees that a substitute teacher should not have shown an R-rated movie to 12-year-olds without permission from their parents.

That said, this lawsuit is inane and probably motivated at least in part by homophobia.

I can't believe anyone would defend the lawsuit.

I think pretty much everyone agrees that a substitute teacher should not have shown an R-rated movie to 12-year-olds without permission from their parents.

That said, this lawsuit is inane and probably motivated at least in part by homophobia.

I can't believe anyone would defend the lawsuit.

You were away from NSG too long apparently. :)

I think pretty much everyone agrees that a substitute teacher should not have shown an R-rated movie to 12-year-olds without permission from their parents.
Personally, given how completely arbitrary the ratings system is... I'd say "depends on the R rated film and the context."

I think pretty much everyone agrees that a substitute teacher should not have shown an R-rated movie to 12-year-olds without permission from their parents.

That said, this lawsuit is inane and probably motivated at least in part by homophobia.

I can't believe anyone would defend the lawsuit.

I don't know that anyone has defended the lawsuit. And, while homosexuality is almost certainly a factor, I strongly suspect that the lawsuit and the grandparents' outrage would not have been noticeably less if they'd shown the same movie absent the homosexuality and just with a man and a woman cheating on their spouses. These are people who got upset by the presense of profanity in a book. I think to assume that homosexuality is the motivation for the lawsuit is assuming more than we can support.

I don't know that anyone has defended the lawsuit. And, while homosexuality is almost certainly a factor, I strongly suspect that the lawsuit and the grandparents' outrage would not have been noticeably less if they'd shown the same movie absent the homosexuality and just with a man and a woman cheating on their spouses. These are people who got upset by the presense of profanity in a book. I think to assume that homosexuality is the motivation for the lawsuit is assuming more than we can support.

Nice job of straddling the fence.

The bottom line is these people are asshats.

Nice job of straddling the fence.

The bottom line is these people are asshats.

All we have from the article is that these people are suing over it, we don't know why. The article does a good job of letting the reader form their own conclusions, which I suspect is probably why the article leaves that information out.

To assume that these people are right wing neocons that objected to the homosexuality only is unsupportable with the information we have.

That said, yes, of course they're asshats. That doesn't have any impact on the fact that what the teacher did was wrong.

All we have from the article is that these people are suing over it, we don't know why. The article does a good job of letting the reader form their own conclusions, which I suspect is probably why the article leaves that information out.

To assume that these people are right wing neocons that objected to the homosexuality only is unsupportable with the information we have.

What part of "probably motivated at least in part" didn't you understand?

That said, yes, of course they're asshats. That doesn't have any impact on the fact that what the teacher did was wrong.

And the fact that what the substitute did was wrong (assuming the lawsuit is accurate) doesn't have any impact on the fact that the lawsuit is inane.

Nice job of straddling the fence.

The bottom line is these people are asshats.

I agree with the second part. On the first part, you may well be right, but the evidence doesn't support your claim. If you mean by straddling the fence, you mean not assuming things I don't have evidence for, then thank you.

What part of "probably motivated at least in part" didn't you understand?

I just don't see how acknowledging that the possibility is there is somehow a bad thing.


And the fact that what the substitute did was wrong (assuming the lawsuit is accurate) doesn't have any impact on the fact that the lawsuit is inane.

And thus far, no one's tried to argue that point.

isn't Brockback mountain an R movie?
If it was a permission slip would have been sent home and the parents could have forbidden her to watch it.

So its her fault


But What educational benefit does Brockback Mountain have?

Yeah, they do have to send a permission slip home, but still! Common sense would tell you that showing a bunch of 12-year-olds an R rated movie with two (totally sexy) men making out (*squee*! so hot!) is just plain stupid! not only is that a legit case of sexual harassment to a minor, but legal grounds for claiming psychological damage! There may not be any psychological damage (I know my 12-year-old sister knows what homosexuality is, and it didn’t damage her at all…), but it is a perfectly legal claim.

But if you do that, how will you indoctrinate them in the right way?and what is the "right way"? me, I'm rather happy that the [grand]parents in this case are trying to take an active role in what their daughter is learning. they most certainly have the right to voice their opinions, and also to hire a lawyer for any lawsuits that they wish to push forth.

better than those [grand]parents/guardians who sit back and don't care what their kids are doing or learning.

Though, if the parents won't teach their damn children, I'd rather someone at least tried. But this is hardly the way to do it. agreed.

That said, this lawsuit is inane and probably motivated at least in part by homophobia.probably, perhaps. but no evidence yet to support the motivational claim.

and there have been other inane lawsuites out there.

"Fast food made me fat"

I can't believe anyone would defend the lawsuit.I don't think people are defending the lawsuit itself, but the Grandparents right/ability to sue.

take the "that's so Gay" lawsuit. that is one probably everyone would agree shouldn't be tried, yet it has been put before a judge and a ruling was made.

maybe the same fate awaits this one as well.

Just like forcing them to view the real world before they're ready and in a manner they (the children) are not ready for. you can do just as much damage to others as parents do raising 'sheltered' kids.

It depends on what you mean by "view the real world", but this is probably true. I don't think it really has much to do with this case, however. We're talking about grandparents who apparently got all up in arms because a 12-year old was reading a book with some profanity - which, at that age, probably means they were reading something like Mark Twain (or is 12 still too early for Twain? I know I had read it by that point...).

so it's not just the 'sheltered' who take things the extreme and it's just not 'raising a sheltered person' that causes Pyschological distress. teach the child about the real world, but do it at the child's pace, not yours, and definately not some stranger who doesn't know your child. (meaning the substitue teacher.)

Exactly. Don't shelter your children and don't rush them either (well, unless they're adults still living at home and going nowhere or somethi

ng like that).


I don't know that anyone has defended the lawsuit. And, while homosexuality is almost certainly a factor, I strongly suspect that the lawsuit and the grandparents' outrage would not have been noticeably less if they'd shown the same movie absent the homosexuality and just with a man and a woman cheating on their spouses. These are people who got upset by the presense of profanity in a book. I think to assume that homosexuality is the motivation for the lawsuit is assuming more than we can support.

To be fair, I doubt that the type of people who would freak out about profanity in a book (we're probably talking Mark Twain here) would have ever seen Brokeback Mountain. So, most likely, all they know is that it is about gay cowboys, and thus "inappropriate" for their child.

This may not be the case, of course, but I think it is pretty likely that the person bringing this lawsuit has never even seen the movie, and thus wouldn't know anything about the plotline (ie. cheating) other than the fact that it involves gay cowboys.

I think it would cause me trauma to watch such a movie. I am 18 years older than a 12 year old and I do not think that I could handle it. I am not even a Christian conservative. I am a Jew-boy and a conservative.

I rest my case.

My comment was more about the movie in general than in the specific context of this case, but one has to wonder why none of the other kids complained.

Has anyone done any research to see if the teacher edited the sex out of the movie?

I think it would cause me trauma to watch such a movie. I am 18 years older than a 12 year old and I do not think that I could handle it. I am not even a Christian conservative. I am a Jew-boy and a conservative.

Then you are pretty obviously weak minded, you would have to be to be traumatized by a drama/romance film at your claimed age

My comment was more about the movie in general than in the specific context of this case, but one has to wonder why none of the other kids complained.

Has anyone done any research to see if the teacher edited the sex out of the movie?

When you referred to the child and her grandparents as "blinded by bigotry", that part of the meaning was kinda lost.

It's possible the other children did complain, just not by suing the school, so it wouldn't be as newsworthy.

The wall we keep running into is that there's very little information about what actually happened.

When you referred to the child and her grandparents as "blinded by bigotry", that part of the meaning was kinda lost.

It's possible the other children did complain, just not by suing the school, so it wouldn't be as newsworthy.

The wall we keep running into is that there's very little information about what actually happened.

Well, it is pretty obvious that this case is motivated by homophobia. If you recall, they said that the video was "against their faith", which is generally a euphimism for hatred with a religious justification.

But more than that, it escapes me how someone could watch the movie and not be moved at least in part. It's just so tragic.. and I don't even normally like drama or romance movies.

Well, it is pretty obvious that this case is motivated by homophobia. If you recall, they said that the video was "against their faith", which is generally a euphimism for hatred with a religious justification.

They could've also meant just the sex in general or the adultery or any number of other reasons. You're making a jump based on their depiction in the article as Christian neocons when there's no evidence to back it up.

Most of us that have been discussing in this thread would agree that, yes, homophobia is probably playing some part in this. However there isn't enough solid evidence to know for sure and that doesn't make what the teacher did appropriate

But more than that, it escapes me how someone could watch the movie and not be moved at least in part. It's just so tragic.. and I don't even normally like drama or romance movies.

To each their own, to me it looked like a bad romance novel that was banking on the controversy created by making the two main characters closet homosexuals.

Then you are pretty obviously weak minded, you would have to be to be traumatized by a drama/romance film at your claimed age

It is less a question of being weak-minded and more a question of being weak-stomached.

I know that lots of samurais had a hankering for little boys' assholes. I also know that samurai movies are the basis for the Amercian westerns. However, being a homophobe, I try not to think of my beloved samurais and cowboys as being into male flesh.

I love good samurai and western movies. Brokeback Mountain had no business corrupting this genre. I think that the gays are trying to push the envelope all the time and try to become accepted by the majority of Americans. The harder they push the harder that I must push back. Heeyahh!

Now I know that the gays are not necessarily sissies, ok? I just do not feel comfortable with the fact that often the most manly of men are in fact queer. I venerate the samurais and the hoplites and the oh what are they called you know the guys with the kukris ah yes the Ghurkas. These are all some pretty tough dudes and their ranks were rife with sods. Heck even my favorite directors of film and FBI were cross dressers and one of them was a gay to boot.

I just like to construct in my mind the false belief that tough guys are straight. It makes me feel like I too can be a tough guy just because that I am straight and beat up a couple of jerks in my day and even legally (do not fear I am not a murderer) had a role in killing a child rapist once (which was awesome!).

I'd like to brag about how I helped kill a perv. You see, I played an important part in the bringing to light of the fact that a guy had raped and impregnated a young teenage stepdaughter. When this came to light, the perv killed himself. I smile everytime I think about this.

Nope I do not have much love for the gayboys, but I recognize uncomfortably that some of the baddest dudes were gays. Heck, even my favorite quote comes from a man-raper. Did you ever see that show on the History Channel about Alcatraz? The first Alcatraz prisoner to be executed raped like a 100 guys. His last words were, "If only all of humanity had but one neck so I could choke it!" He was definitely a pretty cool tough gayboy. I guess I would not think he was so cool if he had raped my straight fat jew ass. Man, I wish that he was straight!

It is less a question of being weak-minded and more a question of being weak-stomached.

Or both, there are a lot of movies depicting things I do not care for and I am not "traumatized" by them even if I do not care for them.

I know that lots of samurais had a hankering for little boys' assholes. I also know that samurai movies are the basis for the Amercian westerns. However, being a homophobe, I try not to think of my beloved samurais and cowboys as being into male flesh.

Who cares what you try or try not to think? some were a lot were not oh well

I love good samurai and western movies. Brokeback Mountain had no business corrupting this genre. I think that the gays are trying to push the envelope all the time and try to become accepted by the majority of Americans. The harder they push the harder that I must push back. Heeyahh!

Too bad if you push back, you are in the wrong so we will continue to push

Now I know that the gays are not necessarily sissies, ok? I just do not feel comfortable with the fact that often the most manly of men are in fact queer. I venerate the samurais and the hoplites and the oh what are they called you know the guys with the kukris ah yes the Ghurkas. These are all some pretty tough dudes and their ranks were rife with sods. Heck even my favorite directors of film and FBI were cross dressers and one of them was a gay to boot.

I just like to construct in my mind the false belief that tough guys are straight. It makes me feel like I too can be a tough guy just because that I am straight and beat up a couple of jerks in my day and even legally (do not fear I am not a murderer) had a role in killing a child rapist once (which was awesome!).

I'd like to brag about how I helped kill a perv. You see, I played an important part in the bringing to light of the fact that a guy had raped and impregnated a young teenage stepdaughter. When this came to light, the perv killed himself. I smile everytime I think about this.

Nope I do not have much love for the gayboys, but I recognize uncomfortably that some of the baddest dudes were gays. Heck, even my favorite quote comes from a man-raper. Did you ever see that show on the History Channel about Alcatraz? The first Alcatraz prisoner to be executed raped like a 100 guys. His last words were, "If only all of humanity had but one neck so I could choke it!" He was definitely a pretty cool tough gayboy. I guess I would not think he was so cool if he had raped my straight fat jew ass. Man, I wish that he was straight!
So you pretty much admit that your belief is false and you like lying to yourself intresting

They could've also meant just the sex in general or the adultery or any number of other reasons. You're making a jump based on their depiction in the article as Christian neocons when there's no evidence to back it up.

Most of us that have been discussing in this thread would agree that, yes, homophobia is probably playing some part in this. However there isn't enough solid evidence to know for sure and that doesn't make what the teacher did appropriate



To each their own, to me it looked like a bad romance novel that was banking on the controversy created by making the two main characters closet homosexuals.

That "jump" is a logical assumption; feel free to argue over semantics when all the information we have points to this being motivated by homophobia. They're suing for "psychological damages", and even they must know that seeing some partially-depicted sex scenes at the age of 12 (when puberty generally starts) isn't going to cause severe mental trauma. I think the arguing over semantics as to whether or not these people are motivated by a dislike of gays is ridiculous; it's fairly clear they are, and people are just trying to appear more "moderate" than they would otherwise and thus believe they're lending themselves credence. It's stupid; if you have an opinion, state it, don't try to gloss it over with nice terms and a veil of false neutrality.

And how would they know that there was adultery in the movie if they did not watch it themselves? Are you telling me they want 400,000 dollars for their daughter seeing a movie they watched at home? Or do you think these people are founding an outrageous lawsuit based on a movie they've never even seen because the only thing they know about it is that it's about gays?

Bad romance novel? Hardly. A great deal of the people I know couldn't help but cry when they found out what happened to Jack, let alone at the end. The way Innis defied his feelings and stifled his happiness by refusing to build a life together with Jack, all out of fear of persecution, and only to have those fears come true anyway..

And the jackets and the postcard at the end, reminders of what they had, what they could've had, and what will never be.. It's all so bittersweet. Even thinking about it now moves me.

It is less a question of being weak-minded and more a question of being weak-stomached.

I know that lots of samurais had a hankering for little boys' assholes. I also know that samurai movies are the basis for the Amercian westerns. However, being a homophobe, I try not to think of my beloved samurais and cowboys as being into male flesh.

I love good samurai and western movies. Brokeback Mountain had no business corrupting this genre. I think that the gays are trying to push the envelope all the time and try to become accepted by the majority of Americans. The harder they push the harder that I must push back. Heeyahh!

Now I know that the gays are not necessarily sissies, ok? I just do not feel comfortable with the fact that often the most manly of men are in fact queer. I venerate the samurais and the hoplites and the oh what are they called you know the guys with the kukris ah yes the Ghurkas. These are all some pretty tough dudes and their ranks were rife with sods. Heck even my favorite directors of film and FBI were cross dressers and one of them was a gay to boot.

I just like to construct in my mind the false belief that tough guys are straight. It makes me feel like I too can be a tough guy just because that I am straight and beat up a couple of jerks in my day and even legally (do not fear I am not a murderer) had a role in killing a child rapist once (which was awesome!).

I'd like to brag about how I helped kill a perv. You see, I played an important part in the bringing to light of the fact that a guy had raped and impregnated a young teenage stepdaughter. When this came to light, the perv killed himself. I smile everytime I think about this.

Nope I do not have much love for the gayboys, but I recognize uncomfortably that some of the baddest dudes were gays. Heck, even my favorite quote comes from a man-raper. Did you ever see that show on the History Channel about Alcatraz? The first Alcatraz prisoner to be executed raped like a 100 guys. His last words were, "If only all of humanity had but one neck so I could choke it!" He was definitely a pretty cool tough gayboy. I guess I would not think he was so cool if he had raped my straight fat jew ass. Man, I wish that he was straight!

First thought: "Protest too much, much?"

Or both, there are a lot of movies depicting things I do not care for and I am not "traumatized" by them even if I do not care for them.

Who cares what you try or try not to think? some were a lot were not oh well

Too bad if you push back, you are in the wrong so we will continue to push

So you pretty much admit that your belief is false and you like lying to yourself intresting

Uh.. I'm pretty sure he was being facetious.

Uh.. I'm pretty sure he was being facetious.

I hope so

Or both, there are a lot of movies depicting things I do not care for and I am not "traumatized" by them even if I do not care for them.

Who cares what you try or try not to think? some were a lot were not oh well

Too bad if you push back, you are in the wrong so we will continue to push

So you pretty much admit that your belief is false and you like lying to yourself intresting

It is the Orwellian art of doublethink. I also am a firm doublethinker on the topic of women pooping. I refuse to acknowledge that they do even though I know that they do.

That "jump" is a logical assumption; feel free to argue over semantics when all the information we have points to this being motivated by homophobia. They're suing for "psychological damages", and even they must know that seeing some partially-depicted sex scenes at the age of 12 (when puberty generally starts) isn't going to cause severe mental trauma. I think the arguing over semantics as to whether or not these people are motivated by a dislike of gays is ridiculous; it's fairly clear they are, and people are just trying to appear more "moderate" than they would otherwise and thus believe they're lending themselves credence. It's stupid; if you have an opinion, state it, don't try to gloss it over with nice terms and a veil of false neutrality.

And I think pointing out that they're probably homophobic is just a strawman to gloss over the fact that the teacher was in the wrong to show the movie to a group of 12 year olds.

And how would they know that there was adultery in the movie if they did not watch it themselves? Are you telling me they want 400,000 dollars for their daughter seeing a movie they watched at home? Or do you think these people are founding an outrageous lawsuit based on a movie they've never even seen because the only thing they know about it is that it's about gays?

From the commercials and trailers it's pretty obvious the men are married. Throw in what the plot is about and assuming they're having an affair is a logical assumption.

Bad romance novel? Hardly. A great deal of the people I know couldn't help but cry when they found out what happened to Jack, let alone at the end. The way Innis defied his feelings and stifled his happiness by refusing to build a life together with Jack, all out of fear of persecution, and only to have those fears come true anyway..

And the jackets and the postcard at the end, reminders of what they had, what they could've had, and what will never be.. It's all so bittersweet. Even thinking about it now moves me.

I'm not going to agrue movie preference. We've seen the same plot done over and over with straight couples, the only difference here is that the main characters were gay.

It is the Orwellian art of doublethink. I also am a firm doublethinker on the topic of women pooping. I refuse to acknowledge that they do even though I know that they do.

Interesting. An overly-extreme reaction to the concept of 'gay' sex, coupled with a self-imposed mental construction that only men eliminate anally...

And I think pointing out that they're probably homophobic is just a strawman to gloss over the fact that the teacher was in the wrong to show the movie to a group of 12 year olds.



From the commercials and trailers it's pretty obvious the men are married. Throw in what the plot is about and assuming they're having an affair is a logical assumption.



I'm not going to agrue movie preference. We've seen the same plot done over and over with straight couples, the only difference here is that the main characters were gay.

One could argue that a lot of people on this forum are shifting the point away from how stupid the parents are for levying a 400,000 dollar lawsuit against the school for this to how it was wrong to show the movie to the class (which it was, but that goes without saying). But it sure as hell wasn't 400k worth of wrong. I'm not arguing in favor of the teacher for showing the movie, I'm arguing against the parents for being 1) Stupid and/or insanely greedy, and 2) likely homophobes. The former much, much more than the latter.

Also.. you've seen a plot about gay men denying their affections for each other and later suffering because of their sexual orientation done over and over with.. straight couples? That would be an impressive feat of storytelling.

Unless you mean it being a forbidden romance with a tragic ending, which is so vague as to apply to thousands of stories, good and bad, throughout history. It would be rather like saying the Ferrari Enzo has been done over and over again because it has four wheels and an engine.

Well, it is pretty obvious that this case is motivated by homophobia. If you recall, they said that the video was "against their faith", which is generally a euphimism for hatred with a religious justification.

Being homophobic and not wanting your children forced to watch a graphic movie about homosexuals are two different things.

Being homophobic and not wanting your children forced to watch a graphic movie about homosexuals are two different things.

How 'graphic' exactly, is Brokeback Mountain?

And - why specify? Surely you wouldn't want your 'children' to watch any graphic sexuality?

And yet - you specify homosexuals. Hoist by your own petard, methinks.

One could argue that a lot of people on this forum are shifting the point away from how stupid the parents are for levying a 400,000 dollar lawsuit against the school for this to how it was wrong to show the movie to the class (which it was, but that goes without saying). But it sure as hell wasn't 400k worth of wrong. I'm not arguing in favor of the teacher for showing the movie, I'm arguing against the parents for being 1) Stupid and/or insanely greedy, and 2) likely homophobes. The former much, much more than the latter.

Most of us agreed that the grandparents are idiots. So the shift seemed reasonable.

Also.. you've seen a plot about gay men denying their affections for each other and later suffering because of their sexual orientation done over and over with.. straight couples? That would be an impressive feat of storytelling.

Unless you mean it being a forbidden romance with a tragic ending, which is so vague as to apply to thousands of stories, good and bad, throughout history. It would be rather like saying the Ferrari Enzo has been done over and over again because it has four wheels and an engine.

Again, not going to argue movie preference. It didn't interest me, leave it.

How 'graphic' exactly, is Brokeback Mountain?

Don't know.

From what I've heard the Male/Female scenes are more graphic than the Male on Male ones.

And - why specify? Surely you wouldn't want your 'children' to watch any graphic sexuality?

That's correct.

And yet - you specify homosexuals. Hoist by your own petard, methinks.

He accused the grandparents of being homophobic that is why I specified homosexuals.

Most of us agreed that the grandparents are idiots. So the shift seemed reasonable.



Again, not going to argue movie preference. It didn't interest me, leave it.

Grandparents are idiots; I'm happy.

"Leave it?" I rather like talking about Brokeback Mountain with people.. Especially homophobic people. It's so nice to see them confronted with the reality that gays have emotions and hardships, and are not just sex-hungry zombies out to corrupt their children.

How 'graphic' exactly, is Brokeback Mountain?

And - why specify? Surely you wouldn't want your 'children' to watch any graphic sexuality?

And yet - you specify homosexuals. Hoist by your own petard, methinks.

It actually wasn't too graphic. There was some mild nudity when the guys were outside, and the "sex" scenes were, IIRC, close-ups of their faces and the sound of belts being undone. There were some kisses, some cigarette smoking, and a bad word here or there. There was also a scene of implied violence and a description of violence.

I hope you're not accusing me of being homophobic simply because the movie Brokeback Mountain didn't interest me.

Not at all. I was simply explaining my willingness to discuss the movie, though I'm not entirely sure if you've actually seen it or not.

Grandparents are idiots; I'm happy.

"Leave it?" I rather like talking about Brokeback Mountain with people.. Especially homophobic people. It's so nice to see them confronted with the reality that gays have emotions and hardships, and are not just sex-hungry zombies out to corrupt their children.

I hope you're not accusing me of being homophobic simply because the movie Brokeback Mountain didn't interest me.

Not at all. I was simply explaining my willingness to discuss the movie, though I'm not entirely sure if you've actually seen it or not.

Fair enough, sorry, I tend to get a little irritated at accusations.

To be frank, no, I haven't seen it. Like I said, it didn't interest me.

and what month will they make homosexual history month?

April, duh. Gay as springtime.

Homosexual studies?

and what month will they make homosexual history month?

Fair enough, sorry, I tend to get a little irritated at accusations.

To be frank, no, I haven't seen it. Like I said, it didn't interest me.

Eh, well, if you don't like romances I suppose I can't recommend you go see it. It is really heartfelt, though.

April, duh. Gay as springtime.

and all the colours from the flowers in bloom are simply fabulous

I was actually thinking May, but Spring tends to start late here.

and all the colours from the flowers in bloom are simply fabulous

I was actually thinking May, but Spring tends to start late here.

I live in Canada, where there is no spring. Our snow doesn't melt until like.. the start of next winter.

I live in Canada, where there is no spring. Our snow doesn't melt until like.. the start of next winter.

Northern Illinois. The snow melts and it just keeps getting hotter until the city becomes a furnace.

It actually wasn't too graphic. There was some mild nudity when the guys were outside, and the "sex" scenes were, IIRC, close-ups of their faces and the sound of belts being undone. There were some kisses, some cigarette smoking, and a bad word here or there. There was also a scene of implied violence and a description of violence.

There was a scene in there of the guy (Heath) and his wife going at it. We saw her breasts hanging out and him flipping her and going at it doggie-style. (that part was a close-up of her face but you can see him in the backround)

But you are right in the sense that the gay sex was not graphic.

There was a scene in there of the guy (Heath) and his wife going at it. We saw her breasts hanging out and him flipping her and going at it doggie-style. (that part was a close-up of her face but you can see him in the backround)

But you are right in the sense that the gay sex was not graphic.

Ahhh, I thought there was some toplessness in it but I wasn't sure. Well, ok, boobs. xD

But hey, I saw a boob movie when I was twelve. I think it was Romeo and Juliette.

Ahhh, I thought there was some toplessness in it but I wasn't sure. Well, ok, boobs. xD

But hey, I saw a boob movie when I was twelve. I think it was Romeo and Juliette.

True, but I would say that's a different context. Romeo and Juliet was a flash. From what's been described, Brokeback Mountain's is part of the full sex act.

Ahhh, I thought there was some toplessness in it but I wasn't sure. Well, ok, boobs. xD

But hey, I saw a boob movie when I was twelve. I think it was Romeo and Juliette.

That scene just stuck in my head..more so than any other. And I have only watched the movie one time before giving it away.

Yeah..Iv'e seen more graphic than that when I was younger..just not in school.

True, but I would say that's a different context. Romeo and Juliet was a flash. From what's been described, Brokeback Mountain's is part of the full sex act.

I don't really remember the boobs in either film aside from the fact that they were in it. It's sort of a fuzzy bit of flesh-lumpiness in my brain.

But hey, we're more liberal up here anyway.

I don't really remember the boobs in either film aside from the fact that they were in it. It's sort of a fuzzy bit of flesh-lumpiness in my brain.

But hey, we're more liberal up here anyway.

Chicago=last bastion of liberalism in Illinois ;)

It depends on what you mean by "view the real world", but this is probably true. I don't think it really has much to do with this case, however. We're talking about grandparents who apparently got all up in arms because a 12-year old was reading a book with some profanity - which, at that age, probably means they were reading something like Mark Twain (or is 12 still too early for Twain? I know I had read it by that point...). and what Mark Twain could pass on is that it's ok to call people "******".

However, since they never went into the detail of the profanity book problem, no one can say what the book was. an Andrew Dice Clay autobiograhy perhaps?

Exactly. Don't shelter your children and don't rush them either (well, unless they're adults still living at home and going nowhere or something like that). agreed, the arguing point is when is it deemed "sheltering your children"?

To be fair, I doubt that the type of people who would freak out about profanity in a book (we're probably talking Mark Twain here) would have ever seen Brokeback Mountain. So, most likely, all they know is that it is about gay cowboys, and thus "inappropriate" for their child.

This may not be the case, of course, but I think it is pretty likely that the person bringing this lawsuit has never even seen the movie, and thus wouldn't know anything about the plotline (ie. cheating) other than the fact that it involves gay cowboys. which, unfortunatly, doesn't excuse the fact that the sub showed an R-Rated film to a class that 1) is under the recommended viewing age, 2) may have no real educational reason to watch that R-rated film. 3) did not obtain/inform the parents that such a film was to be shown.

those points would still be valid no matter what R-rated movie you exchange "Brokeback Mountain" with. and those reasons would be why I would sue (yes, even if my daughter has been or has not been psychologically distressed.)

and since it's not said what the Grandparents objected to nor why the teacher showed such a film, we just have to wait till the trial.

But more than that, it escapes me how someone could watch the movie and not be moved at least in part. It's just so tragic.. and I don't even normally like drama or romance movies.

It is very tragic, but the problem I ran into with the movie - which I really wanted to like - was the fact that I didn't like the characters. I thought they were both assholes., so it was much harder to be moved by their plight.

and what Mark Twain could pass on is that it's ok to call people "******".

Only if the reader is incredibly dim-witted.

However, since they never went into the detail of the profanity book problem, no one can say what the book was. an Andrew Dice Clay autobiograhy perhaps?

No one can say what it was, but Mark Twain books are high on the list of books that people get up in arms about - and are usually required reading at some point in schooling.

agreed, the arguing point is when is it deemed "sheltering your children"?

when it's more about you than about your children.

which, unfortunatly, doesn't excuse the fact that the sub showed an R-Rated film to a class that 1) is under the recommended viewing age, 2) may have no real educational reason to watch that R-rated film. 3) did not obtain/inform the parents that such a film was to be shown.

Of course not.

those points would still be valid no matter what R-rated movie you exchange "Brokeback Mountain" with. and those reasons would be why I would sue (yes, even if my daughter has been or has not been psychologically distressed.)

Why sue? You could just call for the school to fire the teacher, without years of litigation and huge amounts of money being spent.

Only if the reader is incredibly dim-witted. you gotta admit... the depths of human stupidity can and does make such things possible. :p

No one can say what it was, but Mark Twain books are high on the list of books that people get up in arms about - and are usually required reading at some point in schooling.as well as others. but we really shouldn't be assuming it is or was or whatnot.

when it's more about you than about your children. but don't we tend to raise children baised on our childhood? Had a bad childhood, then as a parent you will strive to NOT repeat that, but if you had a good childhood, then you strive to give your child the same. both can cause the "Sheltering" that people complain about.


Why sue? You could just call for the school to fire the teacher, without years of litigation and huge amounts of money being spent.its their choice. and the article doesn't state if they did or didn't contact the school about it before the lawsuit.

but don't we tend to raise children baised on our childhood? Had a bad childhood, then as a parent you will strive to NOT repeat that, but if you had a good childhood, then you strive to give your child the same. both can cause the "Sheltering" that people complain about.

The kind of sheltering I am talking about has very little to do with a person's childhood and everything to do with their personal religious beliefs, bigotry, and biases. They want their children to agree with them on these things, so they attempt to "shelter" the child from all else.

its their choice. and the article doesn't state if they did or didn't contact the school about it before the lawsuit.

I was asking what you would do. It seems pretty idiotic to sue for "psychological distress" when you could just call for the teacher (who broke school rules, if not the law) to be fired.

I was asking what you would do. It seems pretty idiotic to sue for "psychological distress" when you could just call for the teacher (who broke school rules, if not the law) to be fired.

They could charge the teacher with contributing to the deliquency of a minor.

They could charge the teacher with contributing to the deliquency of a minor.

Possibly, but that would be a criminal, rather than a civil, lawsuit.

I was asking what you would do. It seems pretty idiotic to sue for "psychological distress" when you could just call for the teacher (who broke school rules, if not the law) to be fired.sorry, misread.

since I would not have had the history of clashes with the school the grandparents have had, so my response would be different... the first thing I would do is call the parents of her classmates to ask them if they were aware this event happened. ask them if they had prior knowledge that an R-rated film was shown. (this will not be done in front of my child tho.)

If it was known that such an even did take place, I would then contact the principal to voice my concern. (and the principal may be getting calls from other parents.)

The rest depends on the schools action.

however, not having the clash between myself and the school, and not knowing how either side treated the other, Lawsuit would not be near the top of responses.

They could charge the teacher with contributing to the deliquency of a minor.

How the hell does showing them a movie about gay people contribute to their delinquency?

How the hell does showing them a movie about gay people contribute to their delinquency?

Actually, you're right, it's endangering the welfare of a minor (I know, it's not any better).

In some states, endangering the welfare of a minor is defined as any person who "knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than 17 or directs or authorizes such child to engage in an occupation involving substantial risk of danger to his life or health" (NYC Penal Code 260.10) I'm trying to find the Illinois equivalent.

At any rate, I said that they possibly could, never said it would stick or even be particularly plausible.

At any rate, I said that they possibly could, never said it would stick or even be particularly plausible.

Not unless Brokeback Mountain has subliminal sexual messages in it, which would make it a lot like this post.

69

Pretty sure a teacher of any sort counts as guardian. I don't think they check old people's credentials when escorting young people to R rated movies...

Theres a point to be made here. If said teacher took said young girl to a theatre to watch BM... she would be admitted.

Although I am in no way condoning any of this.

Theres a point to be made here. If said teacher took said young girl to a theatre to watch BM... she would be admitted.

Although I am in no way condoning any of this.

She would be admitted. She would get into to trouble in that case as well.

I don't know that anyone has defended the lawsuit. And, while homosexuality is almost certainly a factor, I strongly suspect that the lawsuit and the grandparents' outrage would not have been noticeably less if they'd shown the same movie absent the homosexuality and just with a man and a woman cheating on their spouses. These are people who got upset by the presense of profanity in a book. I think to assume that homosexuality is the motivation for the lawsuit is assuming more than we can support.

I have to agree with that to a point. I'm thinking its a situation where the complaint would have been the same regardless, but the focus is dropped on whichever part is found most offensive.

Actually, you're right, it's endangering the welfare of a minor (I know, it's not any better).

In some states, endangering the welfare of a minor is defined as any person who "knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than 17 or directs or authorizes such child to engage in an occupation involving substantial risk of danger to his life or health" (NYC Penal Code 260.10) I'm trying to find the Illinois equivalent.

At any rate, I said that they possibly could, never said it would stick or even be particularly plausible.The moral welfare of the 12 years old, um, girl in question has already been heavily damaged by her parents. And since even porn does no harm to anyone, how can a story about a gay relationship? And it's only a movie after all, she was not brought into the presence of a gay couple or so. A movie is only the expression of an idea, and if this young bitch is offended by ideas, then she has more severe troubles than a teacher showing BM to her students.

The moral welfare of the 12 years old, um, girl in question has already been heavily damaged by her parents. And since even porn does no harm to anyone, how can a story about a gay relationship? And it's only a movie after all, she was not brought into the presence of a gay couple or so. A movie is only the expression of an idea, and if this young bitch is offended by ideas, then she has more severe troubles than a teacher showing BM to her students.

Good. Pick up a 12-year-old and show her porn. The rest of your posts will come from prison. You have to operate within the bounds of the environment you're in. This happened in the US. I think pot doesn't harm people as much as cigarettes. However, if I offered a 17-year-old a cigarette, it would be legal and if I offered them a joint, I would go to jail. Ignoring that doesn't change what happened and that the teacher overstepped the position.

This wasn't just a story about a gay relationship. It was also about heterosexual relationships. All of which were damaged, both men were cheating on their wives and one of them abandoned his children. There's a scene which was more or less the beginnings of a rape. That the content is questionable for 12-year-olds really isn't a question. Would I recommend it? Yes. But one can't ignore that one could make a very strong argument for why this is beyond a 12-year-olds years and completely inappropriate for a non-parent to show to the child.

The moral welfare of the 12 years old, um, girl in question has already been heavily damaged by her parents. And since even porn does no harm to anyone, how can a story about a gay relationship? And it's only a movie after all, she was not brought into the presence of a gay couple or so. A movie is only the expression of an idea, and if this young bitch is offended by ideas, then she has more severe troubles than a teacher showing BM to her students.

Actually pornography can cause some major psychological changes in how one views sexual situations and even how you physically react to things. Especially if it were in the case of a young child being exposed to it. Not that I'm downing watching porn, that would be rather hypocritical heh. But be careful of your word choices in defense.

And I personally think 12 is the perfect age for someone to be "offended by ideas" as you put it. Many at that age are starting into the process of thinking for themselves rather than following their parents teachings blindly yet aren't at a stage to truely evaluate the impact and meaning of things yet.

But hell, for that matter, is there really a point in life that we aren't still growing and learning to evaluate things that occur around us better than we did the day before?

..anyway.. rambling...

However, if I offered a 17-year-old a cigarette, it would be legal and if I offered them a joint, I would go to jail. Ignoring that doesn't change what happened and that the teacher overstepped the position.

Actually you would go to jail for offering a 17 year-old a cigarette. Providing tobacco to a minor is a crime.

Actually you would go to jail for offering a 17 year-old a cigarette. Providing tobacco to a minor is a crime.

In my state, 16-year-olds can legally smoke. That's why I chose that age.

In my state, 16-year-olds can legally smoke. That's why I chose that age.

Ah, yes, I remember that now. It's illegal for minors to buy cigarettes here, but it's not illegal for them to smoke.

Provided that the wording of the NYC Penal Code is at least similar to Illinois', I would imagine that the "moral welfare" of the child was intended for things like R rated movies and pornography. Which is why I stated that it was possible for the sub to be charged.

I agree that 12 is a perfect age to start exposing them to different ideas, but I don't think that taking them to R rated movies and such is the way to do it. If, somehow, BM was related to their cirriculum (which I doubt), I could think of dozens of books and more appropriate movies to illustrate that point.