I agree that "emotional kidnapping and psychological rape" are three exits past rational, but what were the school administrators thinking, showing an R-rated movie (any R-rated movie) to 9th graders, without parental consent? An R-rating stands for something like "Restricted" and I think the age tag associated with it is 17 years old. Ninth graders are typically 13 and 14 years old, and maybe 15, in some cases. I'd be pissed if the school showed my ninth graders an R-rated film without my consent.
I agree with Cindy wholeheartedly. It's an R rated movie, which should not be shown in a freshman classroom. I'm all for sex and violence, but a parent should be allowed to decide what their children see.
From the '70s decorating pictures, I am inexplicably in love with this sentence:
This crawdad sculpture is sure to be the conversational blackhole of your Jenga parties.
Now I need to run off and check what chance its various components stand of being bestselling titles.
Can you sue a school for "showing a really fucking weird movie"?
Let's start with suing someone for "emotional kidnapping."
ETA: one of those posts when you get caught up elsewhere and reply way past the original discussion.
Let's start with suing someone for "emotional kidnapping."
Sure, just as soon we define the term.
Aw. I love Donnie Darko so, so much.
Agreed that the school should have asked permission from parents before showing an R rated film to kids under 17.
I'm picturing a ransom note looking something like
GiVE uS tHe mONeY or yOUr sEnSE Of cOMpasSiOn GetS IT.
What do you guys feel about showing a non-R-rated portion of an r-rated movie? When I was an assistant teacher in an acting class, someone had a monologue from "The Jury" and the teacher showed just the portion of the show with the monologue. A couple of parents were very upset, and I do have to say it never occured to me to question her (I was 19, though and the teacher was 50) motives in showing the exerpt.
Let's start with suing someone for "emotional kidnapping."
When I read the article, it didn't seem those were his actual grounds for the suit (and if those were listed in the article, I've already forgotten them). I suspect the reporter worded it poorly, took the father's objections (offered in conversation), then presented them as if they were legal concepts.
Gone with the Wind - 10.2% chance of becoming a bestseller
Oh my. I don't think I would have survived....
Seabirds, Rain Kept Men Alive for 9 Months
MEXICO CITY — Lost at sea since October, the three fishermen from a hamlet outside San Blas were given up for dead long ago.
After weeks of looking for their son at fishing ports up and down the Pacific Coast of Mexico, the parents of Salvador "Chava" Ordoñez resigned themselves to the belief that he, his two companions and their 30-foot fishing boat had been swallowed up by the sea, family members said.
On Tuesday, news of a miracle came from 5,000 miles away. After more than nine months adrift, Ordoñez and his companions had been found alive north of Baker Island in the central Pacific, the lonely stretch of ocean where aviator Amelia Earhart disappeared almost 70 years ago.
...
Trade winds and ocean currents had carried the three men from the waters off their home state of Nayarit more than halfway to Australia.
