That's sick.

what the hell....psychological treatment could NOT have cost nearly half a million dollars.

Oh yeah right..anything to get some cash. Oh please. I hope they don't get anything.

Wow, some people really will stoop as low as they can. Despicable.

ok. the substitue really should not have shown the rated R movie. When I was younger we had to have parents sign releases to see pg-13 or R if we were under the regulated age... am I the only one? Now who knows the degree this girl was "traumatized..." but does $500,000 seem excessive? It sounds way more than medical expenses.

"it was against their faith"?
There are many things that are seen in schools that are against many peoples (different) faiths. If they didn't like it, they could put their daughter in a private school of their faith. This is a public school.
I applaud the school for promoting acceptance of all people and not teaching hate.

There is no way these parents will win the lawsuit because it has no basis, and the only basis they have is that they are homophobic.

What terrible parents to raise their children to hate others.

I agree - way too excessive!

You have got to be kidding me...

Hopefully it won't hold up in court.

the only thing truly traumatizing in this movie is the depiction of the hate crime, but somehow i doubt that the family claims that is what's "against their religion."

douchebags.

I think it is unacceptable that any school would show this film to a group of students that young without parental consent forms.

blogsap is right. Playing the movie was completely inappropriate. Most school districts require permission from parents for even PG-13/PG films, so playing a very adult movie - particularly to an eighth grade class - was way out of line. Sounds like a substitute teacher overstepping his/her boundaries - I can't image that was on the lesson plan that the teacher left!

I doubt that she was severely psychologically damaged by watching the film, especially enough to incur such a large settlement, but the teacher is in the wrong here, and some action should take place. However, the movie is not at fault.

Thats ridiculous. Not to mention hypocritical for this family to exploit their so-called "religion" in order to make some money. They should be ashamed of themselves. And in any event if she was truly opposed to watching the movie Im sure she could have asked to the teacher to excuse her. (of course then she would have missed seeing this poignant film- her loss)

I agree with SaraSmile that showing the film was completely inappropriate. The substitute should have faced disciplinary actions as a result. A lawsuit however, that is ridiculous.

To show the movie to a group of eighth graders without first seeking parental consent is problematic. I'd like to know more about why the movie was chosen and the context for it being shown in the classroom. As a former public school English teacher, I'm sensitive to free speech and censorship issues from an educator's point of view; on the other hand, the teacher has to be able to justify why this movie was chosen over others, why this movie was the best film to illustrate the points she wished to make, etc. I feel strongly that teachers don't have to seek parental approval, but they do have to act responsibly.

Okay, while I love Brokeback and will defend it to all the haters, I definitely think it was completely inappropriate to show it to a bunch of junior high students.

That being said, COME ON. People exploiting their faith to get their hands on some cash make me SICK. I agree with krampalicious that the only thing "traumatic" in the movie was the hate crime. The sex scenes were WAY less graphic than most hetero sex scenes I've seen.

Oh, for heaven's sake!

I agree that it was kind of dumb to show that movie, which is R-rated, after all, without having parents sign some sort of consent form. My parents are politically and socially liberal, but I wasn't allowed to watch R-rated movies in 8th grade and I doubt they would have been pleased, even though they wouldn't have any objections to the homosexual aspect. (Actually, I remember more, and more graphic, heterosexual sex scenes in the film, but it has been awhile since I've seen it.)

That said, I also agree with krampalicious. I'd be willing to bet quite a lot of money that it was NOT the brutal hate crime scene these people are objecting to, and that's sad testament on their priorities and supposed "moral values".

Why on EARTH would that sub show that movie. Every heard of DISNEY??

That movie was SO inappropriate for school. What was the lesson I wonder??? My husband found it traumatizing. Acceptance should be taught but there is a time and a place and an age.

R rated films are unacceptable, the sub should be fired (i'm sure he totally is). that sounds like quite a bit of money though, i smell a rat. i doubt this is going to hold up in any reasonable court. ridiculous.

R rated films are unacceptable, the sub should be fired (i'm sure he totally is). that sounds like quite a bit of money though, i smell a rat. i doubt this is going to hold up in any reasonable court. ridiculous.

I still don't understand why this is a lawsuit. The substitute should be punished possibly, but a lawsuit? For what?
Does anyone actually think this warrants a lwasuit for
"psychological trauma"?

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."

Why does he feel it is his call on what the entire class reads?

Can someone please explain this to me so it makes sense?

I know that in my schools, you had to have permission slips for everything from sex ed (in elementary school) to field trips to movies. So, yes, it probably should have passed parental inspection first with a permission slip, but still, that amount of money???

ash_marisa: The man's comment about literature was because in 2005 he'd complained about some of the school's reading material which contained curse words. I think he considered those complaints his "warning" to the school that it was material he disapproved of. Thus, when they went and showed the movie, I think he considered that to be offensively disregarding complaints he'd already brought against the school. It sounds like he tried to establish that certain things were "against his faith" and now he is all up in arms that they went against his wishes. That is what I understand from the articles I've read on this so far.

oh man. this girl should be homeschooled if her grandparents are so against the school's "crazy" ways of teaching. sometimes protecting our kids turns into sheltering them from the real world.

although, why was Brokeback Mountain being shown? i can't figure out any educational value from that movie unless the literature class read the short story it was based on...

I don't think saying this girl needs to be home-schooled will solve anything.
What good is done in stereotyping and picking on people who are religious if you are against them picking on homosexuals?

I think the problem of suing people has gotten out of control. What happened to good old apologies?? Have those become outdated?

LOL well, Brokeback damaged me too, and I'm not sueing for lost time.
Whether you love or hate it, the teacher is totally out of line for showing an R rated movie to 12 year olds in a public forum like that.

I agree with most here- that's ridiculous. Graphic portrayals of sexual behavior is just not appropriate fare for 12 year olds, no matter who's hanky-pankying. Add that to a deep dive into the social structures that force people into denying their own nature in order to conform, and you've got a lot for a tween to handle.

that said, that's nuts. no way did the therapy cost nearly that much, and truly, the girl is probably more traumatized now seeing her family's reaction than she was watching the movie. kids learn from their parents and peers how to process things, and if her parents were horrified--at that age, she was probably mortified to have seen something that caused them to have that reaction. shame on them for not handling this more appropriately--by talking to the girl about what she saw and allowing her to ask any questions, and then by complaining to the principal--QUIETLY--that this is not material for that age group, and that the subsititute should not be allowed to teach in that district again. (seriously, what kind of bizarre judgement call is that, showing brokeback mountain to a group of 12 year olds? someone needs to take a gander at that person. that's not right, and that rings a Scary Bell or nine in my book).

okay, so i agree that it was really a bad idea to show the movie to all the 12 yr old kids and the teacher should be criticised. but the grandparents, 'this was the last straw' omg... gosh they're so serious. if they disagree so much about every little thing the school does, then maybe they shouldn't send their kiddy to school at all! i don't even think the teacher would've shown the 'traumatic' scenes to the kids, if he/she was palying it in an 8th grade class!

Shame on them? Shame on the lawyers first! They are the ones who would set fees recovered and tell the client what was reasonable. And they would set it high enough to cover their 30 or 40 or 50% take plus court fees, then the remainder goes to the parents.

Sometimes there are people who find happiness in b'ching and complaining. This guy probably thinks he's doing the nation a public service by suing. I think he's making a fool out of himself.

Was it wrong to show Brokeback to kids? Absolutely. It was an R rated movie. But someday this kid is going to see an episode of Will and Grace and hopefully learn the tolerance that she isn't learning from her grandfather.

Is it right to sue for half a million dollars because of this? No. Education suffers enough as it is. Schools NEED the money. Go after the substitute teacher as it was her bad judgement.

While I don't think the movie was age-approrpiate for the "junior high" crowd to be shown during school hours... I think this lawsuit is a bunch of BS. What specifically about it was traumatizing for the girl?

Her grandparents should just ask the school system to make a rule that Rated R movies NOT be shown in a junior high school.

this is so ridiculous. i understand that some parents might object to R-rated content, but seriously...psychological damage? hardly.

Things you'd do for money...

Shame on them for even going to a lawyer in the first place.

This is not how things are handled in a sane, reasonable manner. This does not merit a lawsuit, only a complaint.

unbelievable.. they aren't representing their faith, by suing for 500,000 in "damages".. that's a lame excuse.

While I agree that the sub shouldn't have shown and R-rated movie of any subject matter to 8th graders, this lawsuit is out of control! I'd be on their side if the suit was a bit more reasonable.

That is completely absurd. Traumatized over Brokeback Mountain? Geez. But the substitute should've played something more appropriate for school .

uh why was this shown in an 8th grade class? Whos the principle of this school! That teacher better have gotten fired or some serious punishment for that! Who knows what else he/she has done or shown....and thats a little much to be asking for in a settlement.

People who sue these days are a little rediculous...Yea I understand shes traumatized-but that much money? Money cant fix an emotional problem! This reminds me of the guy ho sued a dry cleaner for losing his pants--and were talking in the millions! Anything to get money! What has this world come to?

Yeah, I agree with the general sentiment - shouldn't have shown an R-rated movie with sex of any kind to 12-yr-old kids in school but these people are being nuts. However, I found this, also from the files of teachers with no judgment, about a group of teachers who staged a fake gunman attack on their 6th grade students "as a learning experience."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18645623/

THOSE parents and children might have some reason to sue.

What. Ever. When I was young, I used to always read my grandmas's Readers' Digest--especially the "drama in true life" stories. If I wasn't traumatized by reading about bear attacks, I know that girl wasn't scarred for life over a love story.

On the other hand, her class had no business being shown a rated R movie without parental consent. When I was in 7th grade, my world history teacher showed us Shogun in class. Shogun is an R movie with nudity and graphic violence.

I remember my parents were mad at me for going to see Dirty Dancing with my best friend. You can imagine how they reacted to Shogun. Anyway, at least on of my classmates told their parents about the move, and our teacher was reprimanded. I remember her becoming angry with my class, telling us that one of the students "had to be a big baby and go running to tell mommy and daddy they saw a naked lady in class".

I'll always remember that because I thought she was unprofessional and misguided!

That's rediculous! Her grandparents would have had to sign a waiver to allow her to watch a movie over a G rating. There are somethings I'll believe and she may actually have been offended by the movie but children are always given the option of walking out of a movie also. It's just silly in my opinion.

Regardless of the child's (or her grandparents') faith, it was inappropriate to show the movie to the class, which has an R rating not for homosexuality but for nudity and adult themes, without parental consent. It was shown by a substitute, so it's likely this wasn't part of the normal teaching plan and a permission slip wasn't issued because of the impromptu showing.

If the grandparents want to make a real statement, they should have taken the matter up with the school's PTA or the district board. This way the matter could be addressed in front of parents who may not have known about the movie being shown but were of the same objectional mind over it and all the parties involved would have to explain what it had to do with that day's learning curriculum. Without a proper explanation for it, the district would have to act against the school, the principal, and the substitute through proper legal channels and the matter would then be solved.