Family of girl, 12, Sues after 'Brokeback Mountain' shown in c

[scribblet]

I'm with the family on this one, its an R rated movie, should not be shown in a classroom, never mind to a 12 year old. At least there should have been parental permission.

Family of girl, 12, sues after 'Brokeback' shown in class

http://www.suntimes.com/news/education/383...broke13.article

May 13, 2007

FROM SUN-TIMES WIRES

A suit was filed on behalf of a 12-year-old girl who claims she suffered psychological distress when a teacher showed in class the gay-themed movie "Brokeback Mountain."

The girl, Jessica Turner, and her grandparents Kenneth and LaVerne Richardson, are seeking more than $400,000 in damages under the suit filed Friday against the Chicago Board of Education and others.

According to the suit, a substitute teacher introduced herself as Ms. Buford to Jessica's class at Ashburn Community Elementary School, 8300 S. St. Louis Ave. She then said, "What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class," the suit claims. Buford then had a student close the door, and started showing the controversial R-rated film, which features two men engaged in sex.

The suit alleges Ashburn's principal, Jewel A. Diaz, was aware that the tale of the love between two cowboys set in the West of the 1960s was being shown to the minors.

Turner later told her grandfather that she was confined to her seat and felt she could not leave the room, according to the suit filed in Cook County Circuit Court.....

[kimmy]

Yeah, I can't imagine what the teacher must have been thinking. How could she have thought this would be a good idea?

Anyway, I can hardly wait to see what the conservative media has to say about this story. Should be hilarious.

FOXNews: "RADICAL GAY AGENDA ASSAULTS SCHOOL! Is YOUR child at risk?"

NewsMax: "GAY INDOCTRINATION AT CHICAGO SCHOOL"

PrisonPlanet: "CHILDREN BEING INDOCTRINATED FOR USE AS SEX SLAVES BY LUCIFERIAN HOMOSEXUAL LAWYERS IN THE NWO."

-k

[Figleaf]

This substitute teacher should be run out of the profession.

She did two stupid things, one forgivable, the other a serious problem:

1) The smaller concern: showing an R-rated movie (on any subject) in an elementary school is stupid and clearly should not be condoned.

2) The larger concern: purporting to create a 'secret' zone in her classroom is seriously suspicious, places the children in a conflict, and is beyond the proper authority of a public servant. She has no right to purport to impose secrecy over what happens in her classroom. It suggests that she knows she's crossing a line, and that she wants to hide her activities from scrutiny of parents, public, and her superiors. It's surprisingly like the tactics used by real child abusers, and should set off warning bells about her understanding of her duties and responsibilities.

[betsy]

I'm with the family on this one, its an R rated movie, should not be shown in a classroom, never mind to a 12 year old. At least there should have been parental permission.

Family of girl, 12, sues after 'Brokeback' shown in class

http://www.suntimes.com/news/education/383...broke13.article

May 13, 2007

FROM SUN-TIMES WIRES

A suit was filed on behalf of a 12-year-old girl who claims she suffered psychological distress when a teacher showed in class the gay-themed movie "Brokeback Mountain."

The girl, Jessica Turner, and her grandparents Kenneth and LaVerne Richardson, are seeking more than $400,000 in damages under the suit filed Friday against the Chicago Board of Education and others.

This is NOT SURPRISING. I've seen the movie. The teacher must've been explaining the sodomy act as a natural thing!

Besides, homosexual sex, by definition is, pornography. No matter how they try to soften it.

The school system is part of the brainwashing system!

I hope more parents will take action like these parents. We should all give our full support to them!

"What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class," the suit claims. Buford then had a student close the door, and started showing the controversial R-rated film, which features two men engaged in sex.

I wonder what happens in Ms Bufford's bedroom? I hope it stays there too.

[kuzadd]

This all sounds fishy and one sided.

I notice nothing from the teacher or the school , Hmmmm?

why?

My only dispute , if this is true, is an r-rated movie I agree, should not be shown to minors, regrdless of the movie.

But, I won't get into the gaybashing, as it is contemptible.

[BC_chick]

This is NOT SURPRISING. I've seen the movie. The teacher must've been explaining the sodomy act as a natural thing!

Just because something happens in nature doesn't make it natural. Of course.

[scribblet]

Gee we all agree that gay bashing is horrible, just as bashing anyone for polemic reasons is. However, that's not what this is about, although I'm sure some would like to view it as such for you got, polemic reasons. Nice try though.

Actually isn't it illegal to show a R-rated movie to minors?

[BC_chick]

Gee we all agree that gay bashing is horrible, just as bashing anyone for polemic reasons is. However, that's not what this is about, although I'm sure some would like to view it as such for you got, polemic reasons. Nice try though.

Actually isn't it illegal to show a R-rated movie to minors?

Talking to me?

If so, I don't agree that it's okay to show R-rated movies to children. Never said anything remotely close to it either.

[sharkman]

Gee we all agree that gay bashing is horrible, just as bashing anyone for polemic reasons is. However, that's not what this is about, although I'm sure some would like to view it as such for you got, polemic reasons. Nice try though.

Actually isn't it illegal to show a R-rated movie to minors?

This teacher chose a very controversial movie to illegally show the students. I would like to see if this substitute has done anything like this to any other classes.

[M.Dancer]

I saw soldier blue in grade 10. Although there was only a couple of rape scenes...the viloence was horrific.

Today I imagine it would be 14 plus

[Liam]

It's completely improper to show this film to anyone under 17 without getting parental consent (same as with any R rated film).

On a side note, I went to a Catholic high school and saw "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolff" in my literature class when I was 17 (1985). My mother was absolutely scandalized. She then sheepishly admitted that she and my dad saw it in the theatre when it was considered "pornographic" back in the 60's. It had such a stigma about it that, to this day, she still hasn't told any of her friends that she saw it in the theatre.

[Canuck E Stan]

Being a eduational institution, I would have to question why the movie was shown in the first place.

What was expected to be taught to the kids by watching this film?

What learning subject was it being shown in?

Seems to me it was a time waster to keep the kids occupied for two hours and served no other purpose.

[sharkman]

Hopefully the grandparents can get help from some rich friends to hire a big time lawyer who will slam dunk this case. It seems it's the only way these days to have certain standards maintained.

[GostHacked]

I feel bad for the kids. Feeling compelled to stay in their seats to endure this. She felt tortured in a way. Why she just did not get up and leave is a mystery to me. At that age everything is intimidating.

This sub teach should not be teaching anymore I agree. One thing is weird is that there was no mention of a 'class' like sociology that might have attempted to explain it. Nothing of that sort, so yeah she messed up big time.

If I was to show that movie to a minor (hell I have not even seen it yet myself) as a teacher

1 - School's go ahead.

2 - Parents go ahead.

3 - Make sure it is relative to the class/topic.

4 - Make sure it is not an R rated movie.

Sex is bad, gay sex is worse (no not really) but violence is A OK!

Keep R rated out of the classroom.

[scribblet]

I suspect the teacher had an agenda, either way it must of been agony for the kids cos as far as I'm concerned it was booorrring.... The part that bothered me was the fact that the movie appears to condone lying, cheating and infidelity. The wifes and kids were just so much collateral damage I suppose.

[Figleaf]

Hopefully the grandparents can get help from some rich friends to hire a big time lawyer who will slam dunk this case. It seems it's the only way these days to have certain standards maintained.

Interesting point. You would think that all that would be necessary is to report this issue up the chain, to the principal first and then to the school board, but honestly, the chances of getting any action or satisfaction from those methods seem remote. No organizational structure seems to work anymore.

[kimmy]

This all sounds fishy and one sided.

I notice nothing from the teacher or the school , Hmmmm?

why?

Because the article is reporting on a lawsuit that has been filed.

Lawsuits, by their nature, make one-sided claims. The school and teacher will tell their own side of the story later, either when they choose to comment on the lawsuit, or when they defend themselves in court.

blahblahblah

uh huh

As I predicted earlier, the more interesting aspect of this isn't the lawsuit itself, but rather what political mileage hacks will attempt to make of it.

-k

[kuzadd]

Gee we all agree that gay bashing is horrible, just as bashing anyone for polemic reasons is. However, that's not what this is about, although I'm sure some would like to view it as such for you got, polemic reasons. Nice try though.

Actually isn't it illegal to show a R-rated movie to minors?

Um okay, are you referring to me?

If you ACTUALLY read my response, I addressed, the NO r-rated movie to minors issue.

The reason I mentioned the gay bashing as contemptible, was based on some of the responses. Particularily Betsy's.

[kuzadd]

This all sounds fishy and one sided.

I notice nothing from the teacher or the school , Hmmmm?

why?

Because the article is reporting on a lawsuit that has been filed.

-k

Kimmy, I fully understand that, and that's what makes it fishy, the article itself.

Reeks of an agenda.

Let's see, where to begin , what type of 'credible', news release, would not have a response at all, from the school or the teacher? In fact in reading the article it doesn't even appear the news source, attempted to contact the school or the teacher, or it would have been noted in the article.

Therefore it is a completely one-sided article.

Secondly if the concern was over an r-rated move, the fact that it is a "gay-themed" movie is not even necessary to be mentioned.

Would it have been acceptable by the grandparents and further the paper, if it was an r-rated movie? That had heterosexual foreplay/sexual inference in it???

Let's face it ,an r-rating is given if the "F word" is in the movie, inferred sex is not even necessary to get an r-rating.

But duly noting the fact that it is stated as a "gay-themed" movie, in the article, the lack of any sort of basic journalistic balance, makes it pretty obvious, that, the whole problem is not that it is an r-rated movie, but that it is a gay themed r-rated movie, and the article is written to raise the ire of homophobic christians.

Which, looking at the responses, from the self-proclaimed 'right-wing/christian/homophobes', (they can pick their own self-prescribed label) bait taken, hook and all.!

[Liam]

I suspect the teacher had an agenda, either way it must of been agony for the kids cos as far as I'm concerned it was booorrring.... The part that bothered me was the fact that the movie appears to condone lying, cheating and infidelity. The wifes and kids were just so much collateral damage I suppose.

No, the movie did not condone those things. If anything, it showed the damage that can reverberate through families and the lives destroyed when society refuses to allow two people in love from sharing their lives.

[betsy]

blahblahblah

uh huh

As I predicted earlier, the more interesting aspect of this isn't the lawsuit itself, but rather what political mileage hacks will attempt to make of it.

-k

You mean like this one:

Yeah, I can't imagine what the teacher must have been thinking. How could she have thought this would be a good idea?

Anyway, I can hardly wait to see what the CONSERVATIVE media has to say about this story. Should be hilarious.

FOXNews: "RADICAL GAY AGENDA ASSAULTS SCHOOL! Is YOUR child at risk?"

NewsMax: "GAY INDOCTRINATION AT CHICAGO SCHOOL"

PrisonPlanet: "CHILDREN BEING INDOCTRINATED FOR USE AS SEX SLAVES BY LUCIFERIAN HOMOSEXUAL LAWYERS IN THE NWO."

-k

Yes I gotta agree with you. It's hilarious. And it's even the second post! Lol!

[betsy]

Gee we all agree that gay bashing is horrible, just as bashing anyone for polemic reasons is. However, that's not what this is about, although I'm sure some would like to view it as such for you got, polemic reasons. Nice try though.

Actually isn't it illegal to show a R-rated movie to minors?

Um okay, are you referring to me?

If you ACTUALLY read my response, I addressed, the NO r-rated movie to minors issue.

The reason I mentioned the gay bashing as contemptible, was based on some of the responses. Particularily Betsy's.

Gay-bashing my foot! That's usually the case when someone happens to think differently from you!

In my view the act of sodomy is un-natural! My view on it does not change just because you think it's just the most natural thing!

And if I'm not mistaken, homosexual sex is still considered pornography! In my view, it still is!

[kuzadd]

Gee we all agree that gay bashing is horrible, just as bashing anyone for polemic reasons is. However, that's not what this is about, although I'm sure some would like to view it as such for you got, polemic reasons. Nice try though.

Actually isn't it illegal to show a R-rated movie to minors?

Um okay, are you referring to me?

If you ACTUALLY read my response, I addressed, the NO r-rated movie to minors issue.

The reason I mentioned the gay bashing as contemptible, was based on some of the responses. Particularily Betsy's.

Gay-bashing my foot! That's usually the case when someone happens to think differently from you!

In my view the act of sodomy is un-natural! My view on it does not change just because you think it's just the most natural thing!

And if I'm not mistaken, homosexual sex is still considered pornography! In my view, it still is!

actually triple xxx rated heterosexual sex is also considered pornography,from a movie ratings stand point but, hey, don't let me stop you from displaying your own personal biases, wrt homosexuality.

[sharkman]

Gay-bashing my foot! That's usually the case when someone happens to think differently from you!

In my view the act of sodomy is un-natural! My view on it does not change just because you think it's just the most natural thing!

And if I'm not mistaken, homosexual sex is still considered pornography! In my view, it still is!

actually triple xxx rated heterosexual sex is also considered pornography,from a movie ratings stand point but, hey, don't let me stop you from displaying your own personal biases, wrt homosexuality.

If you'll note, Betsy never said it (xxx rated heterosexual sex) wasn't considered porn, so there was no bias displayed besides your own. BTW, when referring to xxx rated material, you don't need to also put triple in front of it, it's redundant.

[kuzadd]

If you'll note, Betsy never said it (xxx rated heterosexual sex) wasn't considered porn, so there was no bias displayed besides your own. BTW, when referring to xxx rated material, you don't need to also put triple in front of it, it's redundant.

besty:"In my view the act of sodomy is un-natural!"

"And if I'm not mistaken, homosexual sex is still considered pornography! "

as is heterosexual sex, but, betsy only singled out ,one kind of sexuality, homosexual.

if her claim was wrt pornography, she would not need to make this distinction.

Hence she makes clear her bias, against homosexuals.

What actually causes a movie to be labelled pornography is the explicitness of the sex, taking place in the movie.not the "who's doin' who" aspect of it.

btw: I like using all the xxx's it makes it more fun for me , okaY?