Father Arrested For Protesting A Book

[Steinlight]

"Where to begin?

Burn schools, to start.

It's amazing how malleable the threshold for outrage is with these school boards and teachers. Exposure to the cisnormative white privilege undercurrents in all the classics - bad. Instructions on how to get cum stains out of mom and dad's carpet - good.

If I had just watched a video of a sheboon at a school board meeting [citation needed], railing against a book because the cover didn't have any black kids on it, I doubt the two-minute rule would have been enforced, especially by a white police officer, and if it had I'm sure he'd already be on paid leave while he went through sensitivity training.

And somehow the pig can't just ask the guy to speak in turn, but has to actually force the guy to leave, as if the cop can't look at the situation and relate to why Baer and other parents might be upset. I hope some kid reads this book and then bangs the cop's daughter in his living room and leaves a load in his favorite armchair. Or his daughter just gets raped by a black."

Interesting analysis.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why on Earth is a book like that required reading? Purely dumbfounding.

Because everyone of her books makes you think. You start with one opinion, and she makes you see a completely different side:

The Associated Press acknowledged that although Peter's guilt cannot be in doubt from a legal perspective, it is hard for readers to know where to put the blame as the story unfolds.[4] Rocky Mountain News agreed, stating that while the beginning shooting scene makes it "painfully clear who the victims and killer are. As the novel unfolds, Picoult succeeds in lifting those assumptions up for scrutiny, until villains and victims seem to blend into a motley jumble of alliances and rejection."[2]

That's from Wiki. If you haven't already read the book, read it. And the explicit passage mentioned is not very explicit at all. The father of this kid would probably object even if a mention of breasts was mentioned.

And so, why do we get to tell the father what is and isn't good for his daughter? So, he has a right to protest, even if it doesn't meet with your inherent biases of the book.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message:

Two threads on this topic merged..

flacaltenn

 

[SteadyMercury]

You don't arrest someone for speaking their mind.

They didn't, so I guess you're done with this thread eh?

 

[SteadyMercury]

Why is the school assigning pornography as a reading assignment?

They aren't, so I guess you're done with this thread eh?

 

[SteadyMercury]

1) Speaking beyond two minutes = no crime committed.
2) Getting in arguments = no crime committed.
3) Opposing the book = no crime committed.
4) Telling someone to "arrest me" = no crime committed.

Question: Why was the man arrested when he didn't commit a crime?

He was arrested for disorderly conduct, that has been explained to you're ignoring it because it isn't convenient to your bullshit thread or your carrying on the usual paradox that those who scream about freedom of speech and the constitution are usually the same ones who demonstrate they understand it the least.

Here in AZ:

A. A person commits disorderly conduct if, with intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or person, or with knowledge of doing so, such person:

1. Engages in fighting, violent or seriously disruptive behavior; or

2. Makes unreasonable noise; or

3. Uses abusive or offensive language or gestures to any person present in a manner likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation by such person; or

4. Makes any protracted commotion, utterance or display with the intent to prevent the transaction of the business of a lawful meeting, gathering or procession; or

5. Refuses to obey a lawful order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, a hazard or any other emergency; or

6. Recklessly handles, displays or discharges a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

B. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 6 is a class 6 felony. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 is a class 1 misdemeanor.

 

[DriftingSand]

They know the lib media won't cover it here

It's not much of a story---in a small town it might get some attention.

The book he was so upset about is by a respected author of young adult books. ''19 Minutes" by Jodi Picoult.

The plot was disturbing --but timely--a bullied teen shoots her tormentor. Timely--but I would have thought that might be more of a reason to be upset than 'sexually explicit' language---one example is said to have been found. If teenagers listen to the news they probably hear much worse.

In the other thread this parent was said to have argued with another---arrested for disorderly conduct. fwiw.

<Parents had met with the school to express their anger that they had not been notified that the book contained sexually explicit material or been given the option to opt out of it.


The book contains a description of rough sex between two teenagers including the words: 'She could feel his erection, hot against her stomach'.


Mr Baer expressed his outrage that his daughter had been assigned the reading material and when he asked to read the concerning passage aloud, the school board refused.


'Sir, would you please be respectful of the other people?' a school board member asked.


He replied: 'Like you’re respectful of my daughter, right? And my children?'


Mr Baer, an attorney, was seen on camera arguing heatedly with school authorities and a parent who supported the book for several minutes before a police officer approached him in the audience. >


<But in a statement to the news media released Friday, School Board Chair Sue Allen, Gilford High School Principal Peter Sawyer, and Superintendent Kent Heminway, said the book “has thematic importance, it contains depictions of physical violence in public schools and an incident of sexual violence.”

The book “has been a reading selection available to Gilford High School staff since 2007,” the statement read.

But school administrators said they erred in not notifying parents ahead of time.

“In past years, use of Nineteen Minutes included notification sent home to parents for approval. That procedure was not followed this past Monday. This coming Monday, May 5 ... this notification will be sent home to all students who are currently assigned the book.”>



I'm out of the loop of young adult literature--but I know 20 years ago---14 yr olds in a conservative community in my area were reading John Grisham. Certain they were reading many more exciting authors, too---as well as everything available online.

I believe that Ron Jeremy is respected in his particular industry as well but being respected doesn't mean that he's right.

 

[bodecea]

He had 2 minutes. Period. After he made his point, he could have used his rights via other venues. FB and Twitter seem to be the way to go now to get viewpoints picked up by media, then to the public.

Besides, if other parents felt the same...that's a lot of 2 minutes possible. But he seems to be one hand clapping.

 

[DriftingSand]

1) Speaking beyond two minutes = no crime committed.
2) Getting in arguments = no crime committed.
3) Opposing the book = no crime committed.
4) Telling someone to "arrest me" = no crime committed.

Question: Why was the man arrested when he didn't commit a crime?

He was arrested for disorderly conduct, that has been explained to you're ignoring it because it isn't convenient to your bullshit thread or your carrying on the usual paradox that those who scream about freedom of speech and the constitution are usually the same ones who demonstrate they understand it the least.

Here in AZ:

A. A person commits disorderly conduct if, with intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or person, or with knowledge of doing so, such person:

1. Engages in fighting, violent or seriously disruptive behavior; or

2. Makes unreasonable noise; or

3. Uses abusive or offensive language or gestures to any person present in a manner likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation by such person; or

4. Makes any protracted commotion, utterance or display with the intent to prevent the transaction of the business of a lawful meeting, gathering or procession; or

5. Refuses to obey a lawful order to disperse issued to maintain public safety in dangerous proximity to a fire, a hazard or any other emergency; or

6. Recklessly handles, displays or discharges a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

B. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 6 is a class 6 felony. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 is a class 1 misdemeanor.

I suppose someone crossing their eyes and making a face would be considered "disorderly" in today's liberal forums (if it's a concerned parent doing it).

 

[bodecea]

And this "two minute rule"? Geesh, the First Amendment didn't say that you were guaranteed two minutes to speak your mind and sit down. It says you are guaranteed a right to protest, to address your grievances with government, to speak your mind. Honestly, where do people come up with this stuff?

So...this is the selfishness of some on the Right....2 minutes are allotted so more than one person gets a turn to address the Board. But somehow or another, this bozo rates MORE than anyone else. I see how it is.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Today, a man gets arrested for speaking his mind and defending his daughter's impressionable mind and many American's lie down like doormats and actually defend the arrest. Just remember, you could be next.

More lies and ignorant rightwing hyperbolic nonsense.

The parent was at liberty to express his opinion about the book, and he in fact did so, he was not arrested for ‘speaking his mind,' and it’s idiocy to suggest otherwise. He got into an argument with another parent about exceeding the time limit and was compelled to leave, having nothing to do with the issue of the book.

The arrest was not made in an attempt to silence the parent’s objection to the book, nor was it a punitive measure by the state as a consequence of the objection, therefore there is no First Amendment ‘issue,’ no right to free speech was ‘violated.’

The rights enshrined in the First Amendment are not unlimited, and they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including incidental restrictions. The two minute time limit would be such a Constitutional restriction, where the government’s interest in allowing all participants to have an opportunity to speak is legitimate, proper, and does not seek to restrict the content of the speech (see, e. g., Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989)).

The arrest for disorderly conduct occurred separate and apart from citizens expressing their opinions about the book, and the arrest was proper given the legitimacy of the time limit.

This is why the partisan right is despised, because of the lies, spin, and contrived controversies that are in fact non-issues as manifested by the OP and other conservatives, this failed thread being one of many such examples.

 

[flacaltenn]

I've been part of these dust-ups before.. Various city/county public forums.. They are rigged..
A school board expecting outraged parents can PACK an audience with DOZENS of "experts" and school employees and DOMINATE the meeting. It's done all the time. You only fall for that kind of abuse ONCE as concerned parents.

There was no justification for assigning soft porn reads to these kids. Not when they come out with such lousy sense of literature anyways.. In California, it was always State suggested reads on Gang drama and violence. THat's because Mark Twain is too racist and controversial..

 

[wavingrl]

This school system has had this book on an 'approved' list since 2007--they generally send a notification to parents prior to assigning the book--didn't this time and stated a notification would be sent immediately. ftr.


I guess parents that object can request an alternative assignment.

I understand this man's concerns--but so many books seem to be similar. As an adult--I don't enjoy reading as much as I used to--fwiw.

 

[guno]

Watch out ... freedom of speech is under attack...

Both you and the Miami Herald are liars, the suspect was arrested for disorderly conduct, not ‘protesting’ a book.

The issue has nothing to do with ‘freedom of speech,’ nor is it ‘under attack.’

Speaking past 2 minutes is hardly an arrestable offense. Had he been a mouth-frothing liberal he'd still be talking and getting away with it.

ten to one he was a biblethumping nutter

 

[wavingrl]

Both you and the Miami Herald are liars, the suspect was arrested for disorderly conduct, not ‘protesting’ a book.

The issue has nothing to do with ‘freedom of speech,’ nor is it ‘under attack.’

Speaking past 2 minutes is hardly an arrestable offense. Had he been a mouth-frothing liberal he'd still be talking and getting away with it.

ten to one he was a biblethumping nutter

He is an attorney--in NH.

 

[DriftingSand]

Today, a man gets arrested for speaking his mind and defending his daughter's impressionable mind and many American's lie down like doormats and actually defend the arrest. Just remember, you could be next.

More lies and ignorant rightwing hyperbolic nonsense.

The parent was at liberty to express his opinion about the book, and he in fact did so, he was not arrested for ‘speaking his mind,' and it’s idiocy to suggest otherwise. He got into an argument with another parent about exceeding the time limit and was compelled to leave, having nothing to do with the issue of the book.

The arrest was not made in an attempt to silence the parent’s objection to the book, nor was it a punitive measure by the state as a consequence of the objection, therefore there is no First Amendment ‘issue,’ no right to free speech was ‘violated.’

The rights enshrined in the First Amendment are not unlimited, and they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including incidental restrictions. The two minute time limit would be such a Constitutional restriction, where the government’s interest in allowing all participants to have an opportunity to speak is legitimate, proper, and does not seek to restrict the content of the speech (see, e. g., Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989)).

The arrest for disorderly conduct occurred separate and apart from citizens expressing their opinions about the book, and the arrest was proper given the legitimacy of the time limit.

This is why the partisan right is despised, because of the lies, spin, and contrived controversies that are in fact non-issues as manifested by the OP and other conservatives, this failed thread being one of many such examples.

He got in an argument with another parent. You are aware that it takes at least two to argue? Why wasn't the liberal, pro-porn parent arrested for arguing?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And this "two minute rule"? Geesh, the First Amendment didn't say that you were guaranteed two minutes to speak your mind and sit down. It says you are guaranteed a right to protest, to address your grievances with government, to speak your mind. Honestly, where do people come up with this stuff?

The Constitution exists only in the context of it’s case law, including the First Amendment, where incidental restrictions such as a speaking time limit are Constitutional as they pursue an appropriate governmental interest.

The intent of the time limit is to allow all present to freely speak, not to restrict speech; indeed, if participants were allowed to filibuster, others wouldn’t be allowed to express an opinion before the end of the meeting.

Moreover, the time limit is Constitutional because it’s content neutral, it doesn’t seek to restrict a particular point of view or subject matter (City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984)).

Once again your ignorance places you at a great disadvantage, as does your partisanism.

 

[DriftingSand]

ABC's Headline:

New Hampshire Dad Charged After Protesting Book

What it doesn't say is: "New Hampshire Dad Charged After Disorderly Conduct." Even one of the liberal icons, ABC, attributes his arrest to protesting the book.

 

[bodecea]

ABC's Headline:

New Hampshire Dad Charged After Protesting Book

What it doesn't say is: "New Hampshire Dad Charged After Disorderly Conduct." Even one of the liberal icons, ABC, attributes his arrest to protesting the book.

Because that's like saying "Dog bites Man."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Today, a man gets arrested for speaking his mind and defending his daughter's impressionable mind and many American's lie down like doormats and actually defend the arrest. Just remember, you could be next.

More lies and ignorant rightwing hyperbolic nonsense.

The parent was at liberty to express his opinion about the book, and he in fact did so, he was not arrested for ‘speaking his mind,' and it’s idiocy to suggest otherwise. He got into an argument with another parent about exceeding the time limit and was compelled to leave, having nothing to do with the issue of the book.

The arrest was not made in an attempt to silence the parent’s objection to the book, nor was it a punitive measure by the state as a consequence of the objection, therefore there is no First Amendment ‘issue,’ no right to free speech was ‘violated.’

The rights enshrined in the First Amendment are not unlimited, and they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including incidental restrictions. The two minute time limit would be such a Constitutional restriction, where the government’s interest in allowing all participants to have an opportunity to speak is legitimate, proper, and does not seek to restrict the content of the speech (see, e. g., Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989)).

The arrest for disorderly conduct occurred separate and apart from citizens expressing their opinions about the book, and the arrest was proper given the legitimacy of the time limit.

This is why the partisan right is despised, because of the lies, spin, and contrived controversies that are in fact non-issues as manifested by the OP and other conservatives, this failed thread being one of many such examples.

He got in an argument with another parent. You are aware that it takes at least two to argue? Why wasn't the liberal, pro-porn parent arrested for arguing?

You are aware that this post is ridiculous nonsense, having nothing to do with the issue of the right to free speech.