More Police nonsense. Father arrested for Speaking Against Sexually Explicit Book

[Deberg_1990]

What the??? He violated the 2 minute rule.

You can jump to around 5:00 in the video.




Gilford, NH- A father of a high school student was arrested at a school board meeting Monday night after protesting the school’s sexually explicit required reading assigned to his 9th grade daughter at Gilford High School.

The book in question, ”Nineteen Minutes” by author Jodi Picoult, is about a school shooting taking place in a fictitious New Hampshire town, and it contains themes of student violence, bullying, and sexual aggression. There is one particularly provocative and graphic depiction of violent, drunken sex between two teens in the story on page 313. Click here to read the passage (warning: graphic language and explicit sexual content).

William Baer came to the meeting to voice his opposition to the school’s failure to send home notification alerting parents of the graphic content. “I’m outraged that Gilford High School would require my daughter to read this kind of material,” Baer told the Laconia Daily Sun.

Josh Youssef, a friend of Baer, spoke with Benswann.com about what preceded the school board meeting and Baer’s arrest. Youssef was at Baer’s home when they were talking about a reading assignment given to Baer’s daughter. Youssef opened the book and came across page 313, and they were shocked by the graphic description of rough sex. “His jaw dropped,” Youseff told Benswann.com.

Baer then contacted Principal Peter Sawyer of Gilford High School last Wednesday to arrange a meeting, but was told by Sawyer it would not be possible to meet before the weekend. Baer attended Monday’s meeting to make his concerns known to the school board. There was a police officer present at the meeting, Gilford Lt. James Leach. Youssef said that he had been told by other parents that it’s not common for police to be present at Gilford school board meetings.

The school board meeting allowed for public comment only; no discussion, questions or speaking more than once was permitted.

After Baer spoke for two minutes- the maximum speaking time dictated by the school board- another parent, Joe Wernig, spoke in support of the book’s content. Baer responded to Wernig’s comments, and it was then that he was asked to leave by Leach. When Baer asked if he was going to be arrested, he was escorted from the meeting by Leach and handcuffed before being placed in a police cruiser. After Baer’s arrest, Lt. Leach was not replaced by another officer for the duration of the meeting.



Baer was not the only angry parent at the school board meeting. Another parent, Sarah Carrigan, said that she was “utterly appalled that this was an ‘oversight’”. Baer’s wife, Barbara Baer, shares her husband’s frustration. “They can discuss this some other way,” she said. “They don’t need that kind of imagery.”

“Nineteen Minutes” has been part of Gilford’s 9th grade AP English curriculum since 2007 when it was published. The school issued a statement that concluded the district “will take immediate action to revise these policies to include notification that requires parents to accept controversial material, rather than opt out.” The school sent out a notice stating that the book assigned “depicts high school relationships, some of which are unhealthy.”

Baer told Benswann.com that the school’s notice was only sent out after he went to the principal to discuss it, and that the notice failed to disclose the graphic passage in the book. “I can’t believe the school requires this as reading material,” he said. “There’s no reason to expect this kind of thing.”

While some parents say that this book opens up critical dialogue between parents and their children, Baer noted that when he asked Sawyer to discuss the passage in context with the rest of the book, Sawyer said he was uncomfortable doing so.

In the extended video below, given to Benswann.com by Youssef, Baer is shown being arrested after speaking out. Youssef believes, and the video shows, at minute 5:05 the superintendent signalling Lt. Leach to confront Baer to remove him from the building.



Read more: http://benswann.com/exclusive-father...#ixzz312z4HDPa
Follow us: @BenSwann_ on Twitter

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

I understand the word. It doesn't necessarily tell you what the policy was before. It may be implied, but it could also be shitty writing. That whole paragraph is a pile of shit that is pretty ambiguous about the whole timeline of things.

But again, not my point. Even if it's exactly as you say ... You seem to be perfectly fine with the school telling the parents that they no longer have a say in what their children are exposed to.

I don't think that's what is being implied here.

They're replacing the opt-out program with an explicit opt-in program. The school would be required to get parental consent before assigning the material. Any student who doesn't get parental consent would not be assigned the material.

[Beef Supreme]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I don't think that's what is being implied here.

They're replacing the opt-out program with an explicit opt-in program. The school would be required to get parental consent before assigning the material. Any student who doesn't get parental consent would not be assigned the material.

I hope that's what it means, but what's the difference? Teacher sends a note home with options for in or out, pick one. Why make a distinction?

[Just Passin' By]

The school department sent WBZ a statement explaining it has revised its policy for letting parents know about books being read. “The district will take immediate action to revise these policies to include notification that requires parents to accept controversial material rather than opt out. Furthermore, the notification will detail more specifically the controversial material,” wrote Sue Allen, Chair of the Gilford School Board.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/05/0...h-high-school/

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

I hope that's what it means, but what's the difference? Teacher sends a note home that with options for in or out, pick one. Why make a distinction?

If a parent fails to respond to an opt-out notice for whatever reason, the child is assigned the material.

If a parent fails to respond to an opt-in notice for whatever reason, the child is NOT assigned the material.

It's a fundamental shift from implicit to explicit participation.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

I hope that's what it means, but what's the difference? Teacher sends a note home with options for in or out, pick one. Why make a distinction?

They are very different. In an opt-out, no response equals tacit agreement. In an opt-in, no response equals tacit disagreement.

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by Fish

You're making a lot of ridiculous assumptions. Some parents would choose to prevent this sort of thing, in addition to not allowing sexting, violent video games or TV, etc. You seem to be taking this stance that since there are some shitty parents who let their kids play violent games or watch GoT, that we should expose all children to the same things. That's nonsense.

This

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Valiant

He was escorted out for not following rules, him contineousely disobeying the officer to get up and leave is why he was arrested.

And I have a feeling the reading list went out at the start of the year. Some parents just like to ignore those things until someone else tells them about it personally. How the **** do you know how to turn to the exact page to be offended by? Second thought, they can all **** off. 2007 is how long it has been required. Maybe pay attention to your kids.

Yup. You can agree or disagree with the guy's point (that the book was too much for kids or whatever), but he wasn't kicked out for stating his opinion - he was kicked out for refusing to comply with the meeting's rules. I've got no sympathy for him there.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

They are very different. In an opt-out, no response equals tacit agreement. In an opt-in, no response equals tacit disagreement.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by BigChiefTablet

I understand the word. It doesn't necessarily tell you what the policy was before. It may be implied, but it could also be shitty writing. That whole paragraph is a pile of shit that is pretty ambiguous about the whole timeline of things.

But again, not my point. Even if it's exactly as you say ... You seem to be perfectly fine with the school telling the parents that they no longer have a say in what their children are exposed to.

No, you don't understand the word.

[blaise]

There's thousands of books the teacher could choose. I think it's kind of creepy that this one would assign one with that kind of passage.

[BigMeatballDave]

I don't have a problem with him being removed.

It's ridiculous that he was charged with a crime, though.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by BCD

I don't have a problem with him being removed.

It's ridiculous that he was charged with a crime, though.

He was asking for it, almost literally:

Gilford’s acting Police Chief, Lt. James Leach, said he had no choice but to make the arrest. “There were repeated attempts to ask him to stop,” Lt. Leach said. “I asked him to leave. He refused. He said, ‘arrest me or I’m not going to’…so I did.”

Baer was released on $700.00 personal recognizance, and is due in court in June.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/05/0...h-high-school/

I'm with the guy in saying that the school policy was wrong, and the officer didn't have to actually go through with the arrest, but the guy knew that arrest might be coming.

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

He was asking for it, almost literally:



http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/05/0...h-high-school/

I'm with the guy in saying that the school policy was wrong, and the officer didn't have to actually go through with the arrest, but the guy knew that arrest might be coming.

See this is reasonable recourse.

He could of disagreed with the topic. I still state it was listed and it was his duty to look over it. His antics and outburst caused this.

Then my stance on what parents allow their kids to listen to/watch is way worse than this book.

How many of read Romeo and Juiliet, that is a very sexual book. Especially for the older crowd. It is tame to what kids listen/watch now.

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by Fish

You're making a lot of ridiculous assumptions. Some parents would choose to prevent this sort of thing, in addition to not allowing sexting, violent video games or TV, etc. You seem to be taking this stance that since there are some shitty parents who let their kids play violent games or watch GoT, that we should expose all children to the same things. That's nonsense.

No, my point is the video games, music and movies and shows are way worse. And those parents, hell most parents do not care. But once school is involved they become self righteous.

Have you ever had to deal with parents as a teacher or coach setting? the hypocrisy is astounding.

And I will admit I am lumping together, because that is the norm not the exception. Most parents can say they care and prevent it, but do not. Very few I talk to watch over their kids texts. Good parents do.

Those good parents still let them watch GoT though. which I do not have a problem with, just this outrage of a parent over a book. A book that has been read for a while at their school. A book he could have known about. 7 years and no one has had a school meeting before? So no parents cared enough til this guy and lady?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Valiant

No, my point is the video games, music and movies and shows are way worse. And those parents, hell most parents do not care. But once school is involved they become self righteous.

Have you ever had to deal with parents as a teacher or coach setting? the hypocrisy is astounding.

And I will admit I am lumping together, because that is the norm not the exception. Most parents can say they care and prevent it, but do not. Very few I talk to watch over their kids texts. Good parents do.

Those good parents still let them watch GoT though. which I do not have a problem with, just this outrage of a parent over a book. A book that has been read for a while at their school. A book he could have known about. 7 years and no one has had a school meeting before? So no parents cared enough til this guy and lady?

The rest of us shouldn't be penalized because other parents suck ass.