Parents suing school for showing "Brokeback Mountain"

[Angrillori]

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

While these parents sound like absolute douchebags of the highest order, I can kind of see their point.

While I don't believe their crap about "psychological damage" inflicted on their daughter by seeing the movie, nor the daughter's need for psychological help after seeing it, I can see the point that the school should have had permission slips or something before showing an R rated movie.

I wouldn't want my young kids seeing Mel Gibson's The Floggin' of the Christ without me knowing about it ahead of time, so maybe there's something there.

As an aside though: if Brokeback Mountain gave their kid psych damage, how the holy living fuck do they let the kid out of the house in the morning? There's more traumatizing stuff in that bible of theirs than is in Brokeback! Heaven forbid she ever goes to New York, San Fransico, or even Disneyland! She'll be traumatized forever!

Some sad/funny quotes from the article:
Richardson said his granddaughter was traumatized by the movie and had to undergo psychological treatment and counseling.

In 2005, Richardson complained to school administrators about reading material that he said included curse words.

Turner and her grandparents, Kenneth and LaVerne Richardson, are seeking around $500,000 in damages.

"It is very important to me that my children not be exposed to this," said Kenneth Richardson, Turner's guardian.


ETA: The follow-up posts by readers are an absolute wonder to read. Some of the most head-banging douchebaggery ever. But a few posters that really know their shit. BrightGuy83 definitely is stand-out!

[general_koffi]

Frivolous lawsuit.

But yeah... It does have sex in it.

[dug_down_deep]

<sigh>

If it gets you USD 500K, then you're traumatized.:rolleyes:

I hate this shit, because there are some really important issues about kids and sexuality that get ignored, due to the fact that asshat hysterics/opportunists like this make you seem like an idiot for bringing it up.

[CJW]

The article didn't provide much in the way of context for why the school was even showing the film in the first place. An R rated film shown to 12 year olds? Seems inappropriate to me and I'd be peed as heck if this happened in my kids school. I still would like a bit more info on this one.

[xunzian]

The teacher knew it was wrong, "What happens here stays here" and what she did was totally out of line.

[Worldtraveller]

First, it was done by a substitute teacher, so there may have been some other motivation involved. Maybe the teacher was intentionally causing trouble for the district???

Secondly, I agree that it was innappropriate. Parental permission should have been required for students that young to see the movie.

Third, it was innappropriate to the tune of $500k, but this is the good ol' US of A, where if you can earn it, sue someone for it..... :rolleyes:

Fourth, what is the CSS issue here?? This seems more like PD material....

Cheers,
Lane

[Toto]

This is what we get when PD is closed.

But it will be interesting to see who is representing this poor traumatized young woman. It might be some religious right tool who is trying to fight the Homosexual Agenda (http://newsbusters.org/node/12734).

[Angrillori]

How is this PD?

The parents are suing because a public school played a video which "violat[ed] their faith." That seems pretty C+S cut and dry if you ask me.

And if you ask other people too. If you check out the "Post your response" (356 posts at the moment) segment after the article, the bulk is filled with folks discussing the C+S implications of the article.

In fact, I can't see any politics in it at all. Or is anything having to do with a lawsuit automatically political in nature? (I'm sincerely asking, because if that's the case, then I understand the confusion, and apologize.)

[Toto]

It does say this about the grandparent's prior complaints about the literature with dirty words: "This was the last straw," he said. "I feel the lawsuit was necessary because of the warning I had already given them on the literature they were giving out to children to read. I told them it was against our faith."

That's not the basis of the lawsuit. (Their lawyer is not dumb.) But it is a subtext.

If the topic of this were lawsuit abuse or tort reform, it might belong in PD. But I bet that most of the professional tort reform crowd will not be complaining about this.

[Autonemesis]

Frivolous lawsuit.

But yeah... It does have sex in it.

It has one sex scene, in which nothing is depicted explicitly. Oh pardon me - there is a brief view of Jake's right buttock - but no crack, I tell ya, no crack!

[rjf]

It is very important to me that my children not be exposed to this," said Kenneth Richardson, Turner's guardian

If this is actually what this guy is claiming, then I would support him to a certain extent. However, the above quote suggests to me that the motivation seems to be a little more along the lines of "you told my child something I don't want her to know, so I'm suing you for traumatizing her," which I do not support.

[Toto]

Focus on the Family hysteria (http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000004616.cfm) Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said he's seen many news reports in recent months about elementary students being forced to take sex surveys or read pro-homosexual materials.

“As government schools continue to be controlled by liberal educators, this encroachment upon parental rights will intensify,” he said. “The Chicago situation is similar.”

[Tartantyco]

But yeah... It does have sex in it.

-Oh noes!

[Dick Springer]

The article didn't provide much in the way of context for why the school was even showing the film in the first place. An R rated film shown to 12 year olds? Seems inappropriate to me and I'd be peed as heck if this happened in my kids school. I still would like a bit more info on this one.

I think CJW gives more authority to the ratings system in these decisions than it deserves. A film can get an 'R' rating because it contains words of Anglo-Saxon origin when there would be no problem with synonyms of Latin origin. 'Shit' is bad but 'feces' is fine.

[figuer]

A film can get an 'R' rating because it contains words of Anglo-Saxon origin when there would be no problem with synonyms of Latin origin. 'Shit' is bad but 'feces' is fine.Well, Latin is a noble tongue, while Anglo-Saxon is vulgar and barbaric. ;)

[Godless Dave]

Any teacher with a brain in his or her head should know not to show an R-rated movie to 12-year-olds without parental consent.

But "emotional trauma" my ass.

[Angrillori]

More CSS-ey, what rights do the parents have here?

While a school is separated by CSS from promoting a religion/endorsing a religion, do parents have a right to prevent their children from seeing or doing something that would be prohibited by their faith? For example, would Mormon parents have a right to stop the school from feeding their children coffee?

Again though, how far does the school have to go? If one student does a report on Columbia, and brings chocolate-covered coffee beans for all the classmates, can parents of a Mormon kid sue? Should they be able to?

Obviously I'd be pissed if the school showed The Bashin' of the Christ but, because that contains explicitly religious content, wouldn't I have a right to sue for a CSS infringement?

Is there a mirror clause that prevents a school from presenting material that explicitly violates a specific faith? How is that tenable? Anything could violate SOME faith out there. I guess I could see if something bashed a specific faith, or even theism in general (i.e. The God Who Wasn't There). Thoughts?



ETA: And if these parents are really, truly, fundy-riffic, isn't there a biblical prohibition on suing? I'll have to look that up. I guess Jesus is only important when he can get you some ching, not when he'd be a hindrance...

[Matt_Matt_]

I have no idea why that movie is rated R. Maybe PG13, but R? Give me a break.

12 might be a bit of a young age to view that movie, but, I really hope that the parents aren't suggesting a heterosexual bias such that homosexual activity is considered more harmful than homosexual activity. They have no right to force such an opinion on other people.

[Condraz23]

I don't think it was a good idea to show such a violent movie to young children. Not because of the risk of psychological trauma, but because it could make some children scared or uncomfortable.

[Berthold]

But yeah... It does have sex in it.
So does Walt Disney's "Lady and the Tramp" (remember :blush: ?).

[dettus]

Two comments.

1) showing BM was probably not a good idea. I'd be upset if the school took it upon themselves to show R rated movies to my kids.

2) when religionists sue for what we consider ridiculous reasons it, in turn, makes our law suits seem ridiculous too. They all get tossed into the same catergory of nutjobs. This is regarding the average person who is generally uninterested in CSS issues. SO IMO many lawsuits that involve the religious are brought to court to stain all lawsuits.

[Angrillori]

I just realized the angle no one is seeing on this:

Just as the Christians scream about how everyone is trying to get Jesus out of schools, isn't this an example of how Christians are trying to get gay out of schools?

Quite frankly I'd rather have my schools loaded with gay and lesbian kids than with fundies, but that's just me. :)

[dug_down_deep]

I just realized the angle no one is seeing on this:

Just as the Christians scream about how everyone is trying to get Jesus out of schools, isn't this an example of how Christians are trying to get gay out of schools?
It's not clear if that's the case or not. If so, that's wrong. But it's a terrible idea to show an R-rated movie to kids without permission from their parents.

Quite frankly I'd rather have my schools loaded with gay and lesbian kids than with fundies, but that's just me. :)
What about gay fundies? There are plenty of them, I'm sure.

I'd rather have my schools loaded with kids who are being decent, respectable people. Period.

[The Rev. D.D.]

I think I'm with the majority here...R-rated movies probably aren't appropriate for kids that age, not just for content, but because this one in particular will bring up issues 12-year-olds may not be able to wrap their heads around. Although that could lead to some important discussions with their parents...

But to sue for half a mil is ridiculous, and looks to me like a "get us in the news" type deal.

The discussion on MSN...I tried to read it all, but the rampant stupidity from a lot of posters was too much. I may have to take it in small doses...

[Ruiner]

I, too, feel that the ratings systems are questionable. They are arbitrary ratings made by people based on content that they feel is objectionable. The content of the movie is what should be in question here, not the arbitrary rating system given it by a board of "regular" people. I quote regular because I've seen This Film is Not Yet Rated as well.

Brokeback Mountain should be admissible as evidence such that a jury can ascertain whether it was such a powerful set of imagery which would logically lead to the traumatizing of a child... then delve deeper and show that it was not the film itself which traumatizes this child but the conflicting messages by their parents with relation to this film - and of course use that question of the actual origin of the trauma involved to compare to other forms of religious indoctrination which, once the indoctrinated child is confronted with alternative views, do not cause trauma. Santa Claus, for instance?

I've never seen the film, so I can't make any judgment about whether it is "appropriate" for children. Which is why the Jury would also need to see the film in it's entirety and not just segments of it. I hope that is what is done.

[Angrillori]

I've never seen the film, so I can't make any judgment about whether it is "appropriate" for children. Which is why the Jury would also need to see the film in it's entirety and not just segments of it. I hope that is what is done.
That gave me the mental image of the Plaintiff's attorney showing a looped 30 second bit of Heath Ledger's asscrack for over and over again for an hour.

It's the hypocricy that's getting me of the parents. Beyond even the right-to-sue questions, I bet a million billion billion dollars this kid has seen R-rated movies that are much more child-traumatizing than BB Mountain. For example: Smashin' of the Christ.

But they're going to sue over BB Mountain?

They're just lying for Jesus, trying to hide their homophobia beneath the MPAA rating system. I bet, just bet that million billion jillion dollars that at root, it's not the rating, but the gay that they're objecting to, and that's what gets me.

[credoconsolans]

It was an adult movie with adult themes. The movie was disturbing for adults because of the issues in it. It is definitely not a film for younger children. It has at least 4 sex scenes in it (two homosexual, two heterosexual), two topless female scenes, one full male frontal nudity and two naked bottom men.

Uncut it was not a film to show children, though I do agree more children have probably been traumatized by


SPOILERS!!!!



Bambi's mother getting killed than this movie. What is viewed as suitable for children is skewed in this country. Homosexual sex is 'traumatizing' - I believe the grandparents are homophobic and without saying so so that they are not pinned as intolerant fundamentalist yokels - they just say the movie is against their beliefs - but then so are most daytime and nighttime soap operas. However, check out the bible and most middle/high school English literature reading requirements. The bible, well...in Shakespeare alone you have such child-approved themes as murder and suicide.

Go figure.

[dug_down_deep]

Yeah, but...

The offensive thing you see in movies is not the suggestion that there is such a thing as sex. It is an undermining of many people's values concerning sex, in addition to a crass use of titillation to sell movie tickets. Parents should always have the right to say no to that sort of thing.

As I said before, though, the lawsuit is bullshit.

Minor point: I don't know how people feel in general about Shakespeare, but I find what he says about pretty much everything acceptable for my children. That said, the recent Titus movie was R, which means they ought not be showing that one without parental permission either.

Minor point: In general, I think PG-13 movies are more offensive than R movies. They tend to go straight for the titillation and denigration factor.

[geddit?]

A sample of Brokeback's ratings in other countries:

Netherlands:12
Japan:PG-12
Taiwan:R-12
Portugal:M/12
Germany:12
Iceland:12

Yes, I know they aren't the US, but really...

When I was 12, I would have slept through it.

[Ruiner]

The problem I also see with it is the argument that it traumatized her based on her indoctrination... not the film's fault.

Using the Bambi example, it is rated G but depicts death of a loved one. I was indoctrinated that people and animals never die violent deaths and I was convinced of that due to strict control of my life by my guardians. Would my trauma be the school's fault if they'd shown Bambi without permission, even though it's G-rated? What other contradictory ideas must parents give permission for? Evolution? Abstinence? Greek gods? Socialism?


Woo, it shows boobs and ass... big fucking deal. Children are not as innocent and virtuous as their parents want to think... I saw my first nude magazine at 8. I knew what sex was at 5. It's just that sex is a cultural taboo to discuss with children or even acknowledge that humans have sex in front of children. Why?

[Angrillori]

Yeah, but...

The offensive thing you see in movies is not the suggestion that there is such a thing as sex. It is an undermining of many people's values concerning sex, in addition to a crass use of titillation to sell movie tickets. Parents should always have the right to say no to that sort of thing.

As I said before, though, the lawsuit is bullshit.

Minor point: I don't know how people feel in general about Shakespeare, but I find what he says about pretty much everything acceptable for my children. That said, the recent Titus movie was R, which means they ought not be showing that one without parental permission either.And if the movie was rated R (which I believe used the actual play dialogue as a script), is reading the play in school acceptable?

(Sorry about the non-CSS diversion there.)

[Angrillori]

A sample of Brokeback's ratings in other countries:

Netherlands:12
Japan:PG-12
Taiwan:R-12
Portugal:M/12
Germany:12
Iceland:12

Yes, I know they aren't the US, but really...

When I was 12, I would have slept through it.I wonder if that says anything about our children or our adults...

[Toto]

I'm still waiting to read some actual facts about what happened here.

[Wasted Sapience]

"It's against our faith." That's some pretty weak faith if Brokeback Mountain is able to shake it.

[dug_down_deep]

And if the movie was rated R (which I believe used the actual play dialogue as a script), is reading the play in school acceptable?

(Sorry about the non-CSS diversion there.)
As a parent, I would say PLEASE...PROCEED! I would appreciate being asked, though.

[seven8s]

Parents suing school for showing "Brokeback Mountain"

Good for them, I hope they win millions. If the movie is in their opinion corruptive then they are 100% justified in their suit. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, iow’s if prayer (religious values/beliefs) has no place in school, neither does Broke Back Mountain.

[Matt_Matt_]

"It's against our faith." That's some pretty weak faith if Brokeback Mountain is able to shake it.

Exactly. Plus, this faith argument is pretty weak. What is stopping someone else from suing a school for mentioning heterosexuality, claiming that any mention of heterosexuality is against their faith.

If there is a reason why it shouldn't be shown, that reason better not be religious. That is an unreasonable argument.

[ComestibleVenom]

iow’s if prayer (religious values/beliefs) has no place in school, neither does Broke Back Mountain.

If religion isn't allowed in schools, heterosexual values and values have no place in school. um.

[dettus]

Good for them, I hope they win millions. If the movie is in their opinion corruptive then they are 100% justified in their suit. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, iow’s if prayer (religious values/beliefs) has no place in school, neither does Broke Back Mountain.

This is what I was talking about in my previous post (on page 1). These sort of ridiculous lawsuits stain legitimate ones.

[seven8s]

dettus
This is what I was talking about in my previous post (on page 1). These sort of ridiculous lawsuits stain legitimate ones.

And so you would do what, reserve the judicial system for what, or should I say ‘whom? The only way something can be stained is how? It’s absorbable? Is that the purpose of the movie being shown? Is that the purpose of prayer in school? What not just allow both of them and be done with it? Free for all correct? Or is that free fall? Everybody gets their share, pie in the sky something, correct?

ComestibleVenom
If religion isn't allowed in schools, heterosexual values and values have no place in school. um.

?????

Here let me help you make some sense out of that, being omnipotent that I am..........


What are heterosexual values? Do you think heterosexual values are all the same? Do you think that homosexual values are all the same?


Wasted Sapience
"It's against our faith." That's some pretty weak faith if Brokeback Mountain is able to shake it.

It is not a ‘weak faith’, it is about an influence-able child, hence strong faith, the rights of parentage, no different then the argument concerning prayer in school. But of course you knew that, correct? And so this silly banter is what? BS, a way to wile away the day..............wasted space, or argument, both?


Originally Posted by Angrillori
And if the movie was rated R (which I believe used the actual play dialogue as a script), is reading the play in school acceptable?


Many parents, including theists would consider/rate the recitation of prayer in school an ‘x’ (no, no), the question being..............would the ‘reading’ of prayer be acceptable?


Dug down deep
As a parent, I would say PLEASE...PROCEED! I would appreciate being asked, though.

Appreciate being asked, but wouldn’t require it, correct? Yeah, right.


Matt Matt
Exactly. Plus, this faith argument is pretty weak. What is stopping someone else from suing a school for mentioning heterosexuality, claiming that any mention of heterosexuality is against their faith.

If there is a reason why it shouldn't be shown, that reason better not be religious. That is an unreasonable argument.

This is exactly why you are not a judge................you don’t know how. Perhaps it would be helpful if you reviewed the ‘judicial branch’, and or a short course in civil law, ‘merit’ being a key word. But then again, you knew these things, correct? Does this make your argument without merit? If not, show your merit........then I’ll show you mine.

Go on BB (bigboy), show our cards...............butlet me give you a little hint, Supreme Court.

[Matt_Matt_]

The point I was making is that barring something non-religious from a school because it is against someone's faith opens up the door to all chaos. If the courts do accept such an argument then we are headed in a dangerous direction. Would you mind being more coherent about what problem you supposedly have for what I said?

[geddit?]

Many parents, including theists would consider/rate the recitation of prayer in school an ‘x’ (no, no), the question being..............would the ‘reading’ of prayer be acceptable?

Are you talking about teacher "led" prayers?
Or a teacher making a single reading of a prayer to discuss it's content?

It takes about 15 seconds to quietly recite an "Our Father".
As long as the student isn't disruptive, who cares?



Appreciate being asked, but wouldn’t require it, correct? Yeah, right.

The motion picture rating system is voluntary. A 6 year old can go into a public library in the US and take out an R rated film.

[credoconsolans]

The motion picture rating system is voluntary. A 6 year old can go into a public library in the US and take out an R rated film.

Not in some libraries. Some material is restricted from being checked out by minors.

[geddit?]

Not in some libraries. Some material is restricted from being checked out by minors.

Correct, but not by law.

More specifically, in Chicago where this took place, do "R" rated films violate obscenity or indecency laws?

"The Passion of the Christ" is rated "R". Would a certain poster be cheering for millions in award money had that been shown?

I had to read the "script" for that movie in the 3rd grade in catholic school. I was tested on it's content.

The substitute teacher showed poor judgement, she was advancing her own agenda - an apology should have sufficed.

The rest is puritanical grandstanding.

I'd like to know "how" the content of this film caused psychological damage to an 8th grader.

[brighid]

I, too, feel that the ratings systems are questionable. They are arbitrary ratings made by people based on content that they feel is objectionable. The content of the movie is what should be in question here, not the arbitrary rating system given it by a board of "regular" people. I quote regular because I've seen This Film is Not Yet Rated as well.

Brokeback Mountain should be admissible as evidence such that a jury can ascertain whether it was such a powerful set of imagery which would logically lead to the traumatizing of a child... then delve deeper and show that it was not the film itself which traumatizes this child but the conflicting messages by their parents with relation to this film - and of course use that question of the actual origin of the trauma involved to compare to other forms of religious indoctrination which, once the indoctrinated child is confronted with alternative views, do not cause trauma. Santa Claus, for instance?

I've never seen the film, so I can't make any judgment about whether it is "appropriate" for children. Which is why the Jury would also need to see the film in it's entirety and not just segments of it. I hope that is what is done.


The problem is that each individual child in that classroom will have different levels of maturity to be able to handle adult content, and it should not be up to an individual teacher or school to determine that choice for those children or their parents.

I have not seen the movie, but I have a 13 year-old son and we regularly screen movies to see whether or not they would be appropriate (at any age) by OUR standards and frankly those standards, although certainly not conservative, are much different than the standards of other parents.

I have found some rated R movies to be just fine, even when he was 9 or 10, but some PG-13 movies to be highly inappropriate while others were pretty tame.

Although I don't think these parents should receive a DIME, I do think they have every right to be upset and seek action against the school for violating their parental rights.

B

[geddit?]

Although I don't think these parents should receive a DIME, I do think they have every right to be upset and seek action against the school for violating their parental rights.

B

They are seeking legal action against the school.
A violation of parental rights constituting an act that is abusive and endangers the welfare of a child.

This is what "parental rights" means legally here. It doesn't mean upsetting a child.

It is being argued that a "R" rated film with homosexual themes and about 2 minutes of nudity and "man on man" crap is abusive and endandering to a 12 yr old eighth grader living in 21st century Chicago.

Were apologies issued?
Was the teacher reprimanded?
Discussion at the school board meeting?

Alot of bases should have been covered before getting "legal" here.

[credoconsolans]

I spoke with a teacher friend of mine and she wanted to know more information. She teaches minors as well and she does show rated R movies - but only a few minute clips of specific points of the movies she wants to discuss - certainly not sex scenes.

She is betting that this teacher did the same and did not actually show the entire movie to her class.

Does anyone know?

[Angrillori]

iow’s if prayer (religious values/beliefs) has no place in school, neither does Broke Back Mountain.I'm sorry, I wasn't aware Brokeback Mountain-ism was a religion.

Do they have a church in Wisconsin? When are services?