Father Arrested For Protesting A Book

[NoNukes]

I read the other link though. The guy had 2 minutes to speak..just like everyone else. He protested his time alotted AND the book then told them to arrest him. So they did.

2 minutes is hardly enough time to protest X-rated curriculum in a public school. Since the public school is funded by taxpayer money then the offenders need to realize who they work for.

Two minutes is plenty of time.

 

[TemplarKormac]

He had the opportunity to make his point.

He had the same time as anybody else.

He asked to be arrested, he was.

What's the problem?

You don't arrest someone for speaking their mind. It's as simple as that, Jake. Obviously you would sit there and tout the law over the rights they are designed to protect. Am I to assume you support Common Core as well?

 

[Noomi]

Can we stop calling the book X rated please. It is not. Those who believe it is have obviously not bothered to read it. I suggest you do so.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Can we stop calling the book X rated please. It is not. Those who believe it is have obviously not bothered to read it. I suggest you do so.

Well, normally, I wouldn't be making students read about school shootings... at school. But then again, the book does contain a sexually explicit quote as well. Which people who claimed to have read it actually read it, would understand why parents are outraged by this book in the first place.

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

 

[Noomi]

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.

 

[DriftingSand]

Americans have become too willing to accept the direction America is going. King George placed unreasonable edicts upon the citizenry under his control. Finally, the people had enough and declared independence.

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.

Whatever the case, nothing the man did warranted arrest. He spoke more than 2 minutes and he said "arrest me." It used to be that you had to actually break a law before being arrested. I don't believe that the father broke a law. He broke a rule so he should have been removed from the room and perhaps off of the school property but he should not have been arrested.

Simple stuff.

 

[DriftingSand]

I read the other link though. The guy had 2 minutes to speak..just like everyone else. He protested his time alotted AND the book then told them to arrest him. So they did.

I figured it was for more than just protesting.

What law did he break?

 

[NoNukes]

I read the other link though. The guy had 2 minutes to speak..just like everyone else. He protested his time alotted AND the book then told them to arrest him. So they did.

I figured it was for more than just protesting.

What law did he break?

It was mentioned earlier in the thread. I believe it was disorderly conduct.
Perhaps you should read the thread before defending the guy. Or better yet, check out the book to see if he was justified in his opinion. The only person on the thread who has read the book says he is not.

 

[jillian]

New Hampshire Dad Charged After Protesting Book - ABC News

he wasn't arrested for objecting to the book.... though he has no right to do anything beyond objecting.....

he was arrested for disorderly conduct.

what's the rightwingnut problem with the book?

 

[NoNukes]

New Hampshire Dad Charged After Protesting Book - ABC News

he wasn't arrested for objecting to the book.... though he has no right to do anything beyond objecting.....

he was arrested for disorderly conduct.

what's the rightwingnut problem with the book?

No pictures and small print.

They would have to actually read the book to have an intelligent opinion of it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

This has nothing to do with the First Amendment or the right to freely speak. The suspect was escorted from the meeting because he got into an argument with another parent, disrupting the meeting; he was not required to leave because of his opposition to the book.

You’re just another tedious rightwing hack and liar.

 

[Seawytch]

If anyone gives this book to a child, they should be put in jail. Watch out for high schools that say that there is nothing wrong with this book.

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Nineteen Minutes

Good thing it's being assigned to teens and not children then, huh?

 

[DriftingSand]

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.

This has nothing to do with the First Amendment or the right to freely speak. The suspect was escorted from the meeting because he got into an argument with another parent, disrupting the meeting; he was not required to leave because of his opposition to the book.

You’re just another tedious rightwing hack and liar.

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?

 

[Katzndogz]

Why is the school assigning pornography as a reading assignment?

 

[novasteve]

Father ARRESTED at school for complaint about sexually explicit Jodi Picoult book | Mail Online

How date he question the degenerate agenda

 

[wavingrl]

there's another thread on this. The headline is misleading.

 

[shart_attack]

Father ARRESTED at school for complaint about sexually explicit Jodi Picoult book | Mail Online

How date he question the degenerate agenda

Why do people in the U.K. care about what happens at a school board meeting in Washington state?

 

[novasteve]

They know the lib media won't cover it here

 

[wavingrl]

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&#8217;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 &#8220;has thematic importance, it contains depictions of physical violence in public schools and an incident of sexual violence.&#8221;

The book &#8220;has been a reading selection available to Gilford High School staff since 2007,&#8221; the statement read.

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

&#8220;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.&#8221;>



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.