ACLU Won’t Let Dirty Deeds Decision Rest
Posted on December 7, 2005
I hate to harp on the same subject, but the ACLU is now claiming that the Barrington School which banned the showing of “Dirty Deeds” failed to follow it’s own guidelines for review.
From EastBayRI.com:
BARRINGTON – The Rhode Island Affiliate, American Civil Liberties Union has questioned the grounds cited by the Barrington School Department when it decided to ban the film “Dirty Deeds” from all local schools.
In a release on Dec. 1, Rhode Island ACLU Executive Director Steven Brown said the explanation for banning the film “completely undermines a key tenet of the school district’s instructional review policy…”
The review committee that suggested the banning to the superintendent stated that the material in the film “would not pass a stern test of literary and artistic merit. There are sexual incidents, vulgarity (if not profanity) and violence that does no upgrade human dignity.”
But Mr. Brown said the schools’ instructional review policy states that material should be viewed as a whole, not in bits and pieces.
Mr. Brown also said some of the review policy’s “general criteria” for evaluating materials, which includes overall purpose, popular appeal and significance of the source, “would seem to strongly favor use of the film in certain contexts, but they were not even mentioned in the review committee’s decision.”
Mr. Brown added that the decision to ban the film is an invitation to widespread censorship of materials in the public schools.
“Any controversial work can be banned under such rationale,” he said.
In the minds of the ACLU and their dupes, rejecting a movie for questionable content is not satisfactory. Because if a film has 1 explicit sex scene in it, then it should not be rejected because the body of work isn’t being reviewed in its entirety. What a bunch of crap. Inappropriate material no matter how small of a portion of the movie it may be, is still inappropriate material. The school has a duty to not disseminate materials which contain such material.
It is not for the school to permit a child to view materials which a parent may not wish their child to be exposed to. The expectation of the liberals at the ACLU that the school has a responsibility to show current Barrington students a piece of work just because a former student wrote it, is nothing short of absurdity. A review committee has reviewed the film and found it inappropriate. If a parent wishes their child to see the film, then they will permit that child to see it in the theater or when it is released on video. School is not the place for such exhibitions.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, News
Trackback URL
Comments
3 Responses to “ACLU Won’t Let Dirty Deeds Decision Rest”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
You do realize that the only reason the showing of the film became controversial in the first place was that a couple of bleating fundagelicals objected, don’t you? Look:
“The movie’s June screening at the middle school had been approved by all appropriate school officials and was shown only to students who had received parental permission to watch the film…at least one scene in the film deemed inappropriate was not shown.”
Source: http://www.eastbayri.com/story/38473378108.php
See that? No one was force-fed filth here.
The movie was rated PG-13 — we’re not talking about a porn flick — and when I was in high school, my classmates were generally older than that. Yet Barrington high-schoolers now aren’t allowed to see the film either, and Jon Land has been banished from the entire school district.
Do you really support unwarranted bureaucratic intrusions like this? School-district-sanctioned censoring of Christian films and the Christians who produce them could be next, you know. Thank Odin for the ACLU.
Yours seems a questionable position coming from a guy who just hosted a thread dedicated to political incorrectness. Or maybe “political incorrectness” is, in your view, simply a euphemism for “anything and everything painting liberals in a negative light, but sparing conservatives.”
OH!!!! Another meaningless post by the Beaming Idiot. Go read your rambling jacka$$, and then go back to all of the [edited] stories you Liberals come up with to remove religion from schools and public display. If you have half a brain and it works just a little tiny bit, you’ll see the blinding hypocracy in the way you, the ACLU and other Liberals work and think. It would be you who are the so called fundagelicals what ever that word you made up out of nothing means. When a religions display is evident, try applying your own words “See that? No one was force-fed anything here.” But now this no one is force feeding anything argument suits your idiotic needs and it suddenly applies. Then you blab on with this line “Do you really support unwarranted bureaucratic intrusions like this?” Well why not, Liberal control freaks like you, and the ACLU stick their noses into tons of [edited] every day for the wrong reasons, whats the [edited] difference??? You people are so full of [edited] your eyes are brown.
BV: Just thought I’d let you know that I won’t discriminate you for your eye color.
“See that? No one was force-fed filth here.”
Except the fact the public education itself is un-Constitutional and should not exist. Privatizing the system would solve the persecution complex that both sides illustrate.