Monday, May 14, 2007

You Gotta Stand It

By now you've probably heard the story that a family is suing the Chicago Board of Education because a substitute teacher showed Brokeback Mountain to their 8th grader. They want roughly a half a million in damages for "psychological distress" While it's frustrating that a teacher showed poor judgment (it is a rated R film --and however you feel about the silliness of the MPAA you have to know that that's the accepted system) what's outright disgusting is the lawsuit itself. Brokeback Mountain, after all, has a safe and healthy message for society. It details the horrible emotional wounds done to people by intolerance and self negation. Claiming that a child is suffering horrible psychic wounds by having been made to watch it is very troubling. Combined with the fact that this family has complained to the school board before about conflicts to their faith, it suggests two possible things to me, neither of them very pleasant.

  1. The 12 year old girl in question has been so inundated with hate messaging that seeing something that didn't fit into that paradigm --seeing something that was powerfully accepting of love (a complete reversal of the child's own experience) was disorienting.
  2. This family cannot differentiate between their own feelings and beliefs and the world in which they live.
See... neither of those things are very pleasant. Both indicate that this family is dangerous.

I know that I may have some religious readers and I know that I always risk losing people when this subject comes up but rational humanism has to prevail or we're doomed. Society can only stay peaceful and democratic and civilized if its citizens understand that their feelings and beliefs end with themselves. Those beliefs cannot take precedence over everything else. Government institutions, neighbors and, yes, even your children's teachers have absolutely no obligation to share your personal prejudices and faith.

You really shouldn't be living in "the land of the free" if you can't embrace diversity. We have no right to be free of being offended. I am offended all the time by religious people. They regularly speak about the GLBT community in ignorant bigoted ways and I've never sued any of them. Religions have enthusiastically inflicted "pyschological distress" upon the gay community for a long long time. Maybe we should sue churches? Or better yet, maybe some 12 year old child who had a great experience watching Brokeback Mountain --maybe someone with gay parents or a gay friend or gay themselves should countersue: 'This lawsuit is giving me pyschological distress because I loved the movie and now I am terrified to realize that my classmates family would like to take a tire iron to my parents/friends/me'

I get worked up about these things but I know deep down that most people probably just want to live their lives free of interference. Most people understand that they live in a world where not everyone agrees with them. Most people, even if they've never uttered as much, probably realize that it's for the best that society is not homogenous. To each their own. Not my business. Etc... Why can't religious types get this through their heads? We are all in this together. You only have a civilized world if you understand that you don't get to lord over it. It isn't for you. It's for everyone.

I hate to be so filled with anger when it comes to religion but I am. I wish more than anything that we'd see some prominent members of the religious community speak out about the need to keep religion out of the public sphere. It is a private matter and should remain such. Government does not belong inside religion and religion does not belong in government. Simple as that. The evangelical community --which I'm admittedly merely assuming this family is part of based on their actions -- has really done a great disservice to Christianity. Christ really should never have become so equated with intolerance, bigotry, and government interference. Kinda antithetical to what he was about.

This Brokeback lawsuit story can't really have a happy ending... either way the lawsuit goes you know this girl is growing up with lots of hateful baggage. So I'll just try to think about the other kids who didn't freak. She's probably outnumbered. Children are the future so hopefully most of the kids in that classroom just thought "what a freaking great movie!" , tossed their backpacks over their shoulder and continued on with their day.

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's sad, really, that people still are afraid of what doesn't fit into their worldview.

But the teacher really did make a POOR decision.

Anonymous said...

I agree, poor decision to show it in an 8th grade classroom, just as it would be to show any R-rated movie.

NATHANIEL R said...

sure. but would they be suing if they had watched The English Patient?

Anonymous said...

The lawsuit is the part I have a problem with. Either the parents are ridiculous homophobes, they are greedy, or a little of both.

Anonymous said...

It was probably not a good idea to show an R rated movie to an 8th grader, still there's a lot to learn from Brokeback Mountain that obviously not many understand yet. Ther R is questionable compared to so many senseless, violent and gory movies that go away with a PG-13. I wonder what this family would have done if instead Brokeback, the teacher had played Grand Theft Auto with the class. Maybe praise... Yep! my word of advice: stick to role model behaviors like the ones learn from Paris and Ritchie in Simple Life! and so on

Anonymous said...

I dought fundamentalist Christians would've praised a teacher for playing Grand Theft Auto with a class...

c.p. iñor said...

Long time no see... I haven't been able to get here like in forever... I don't know what I've missed but I'll be around a little more... I have 4 points in the actress contest and I don't wven know why! haha. Well Nathaniel it's good that you keep doing this site and blog. I agree in everything you said in this post.

p.s. the make a donation button on thefilmexperience.net it's not showing out for me. can you put a link here please? I missed the march fundraiser and I really want to make the donation I wasn't able to.

Paul C. said...

Unfortunately, I think the teacher's best chance is try to settle. After all, showing an R-rated movie to the class, especially without parental consent, is a no-no. And if a family is willing to go to court over something so petty, they probably have an attack dog lawyer who will hammer the teacher into the ground. After all, people don't tend to bring lawsuits unless they think they have a good shot of winning, and their chances get better if they get a capable attorney. The fact that this is going to court sucks, but the combination of zealous parents and a no doubt attention-seeking lawyer is tough enough to beat without having an obvious glaring mistake to deal with.

Sadly, I have a sinking feeling that most of the kids in class probably didn't think "gee, what a great movie!" as you hoped. They're 8th graders- they probably snickered through most of it, because that's what juvenile sorts do when confronted with uncomfortable sexuality. Hell, that's what many juvenile-acting so-called adults did when BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN first was released. Why should we expect better from their progeny?

One more thing- for those who would pose a counter-example of an R-rated movie that wouldn't set off fundies, I think the obvious choice would be THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST.

Elias said...

I recently discovered this lawsuit earlier this week and couldn't be more appalled. Sure, the teacher shouldn't have shown it - blah blah blah. But I remember being shown 'To Kill A Mockingbird' in, surprise surprise, 8th grade. Sure, the film isn't rated, but themes of diversity, racism, and tolerance are apparent. Hey, perhaps I should sue for having been shown this film?

Yes, 'Brokeback Mountain' defies mainstream misperceptions of homosexuality, but in the end the film is extremely important in our narrow-minded society. Please, psychological trauma?! More like an opportunity. I agree with everything you said.

When it all comes down to it, this significant film is merely a baby- step in this path to social acceptance and SHOULD be screened in Junior Highs. Then, hopefully, those children whose socially ignorant parents with short-sighted views won't continue to hinder people's perception of homosexuals. Or at the very least, alleviate hasty reactions with notable subtext of homophobia (IMO, for the record)

Perhaps schools need to shed these misperceptions fast, save themselves the time and money, and realize just how important this cultural revelation really is.

Anonymous said...

I really souldn't compare To Kill a Mockingbird to Brokeback Mountain in terms of possible innappropriateness for 8th graders. Sex is shown on screen.

Frankly Speaking said...

nathaniel, you're so eloquent.

Beau said...

I have to agree with Paul. Being that age, you don't have a wide array of experiences to base yourself off of, your foundation is as shaky as it ever was and more so than it ever will be. So to show this film to anyone during that stage, I fear, would prove to be a futile attempt at changing what is still very much in the process of adaptating to its respective environment. It would go right on over their heads, provoking laughter, jeering, and anything of the sort. The majority of these kids don't have a strong emotional maturity, so as earnest and heartfelt the teacher's intentions might have been, they were done under a naivete (I HATE using that word) they failed to acknowledge.

That being said...
the parents deserve two flips of the bird. You could show ANYTHING to kids nowadays, and they seem unphased by it. Let's be realistic, short of those few who live under the religious right at home, every kid by that age has seen an R-rated film. Hell, my mother was showing me 'The Last of the Mohicans' and 'The Bodygruard' when I was five years old, (the former of which introduced me to the majesty of Daniel Day Lewis, the latter imposed itself on my poor little psyche...)
(...quick story, then back to my point: Whenever I watch 'South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut', which I still deem to be one of the best comedies released in the last decade or so, the moment where Cartman says "I'm so sorry, that film has warped my fragile little mind", I always think back to my mother putting on that film. The shrill tone of Whitney Houston... shudder.)

But seriously, if parents allow their children to watch some vicious tripe a la, I don't know, 'Species 2' or 'Hostel' or something of that nature, I can't quite grasp why they avoid the subject of homosexuality with such hostility that they feel the need to SUE someone with good intentions, who's just trying to broaden the minds of their students. It's so inane.

Leslye said...

8th grade is kind of young. I mean, I'm 26 and I didn't have the attention span for that movie.

Anonymous said...

Whether it was right or not (and the reported behaviour of the teacher suggests that the teacher knew that it was suss to be doing this), it sounds like the family will get what they want out of this. If it's a no-no to screen a R film to eighth-graders, I can't see the leg they're going to be standing on.

What's really sad though? Yet another spark/furor/'human interest' story for the media to sit on for a few days while real world tragedy flits by.

Anonymous said...

Well said, nate.

The world is full of sheep and mad shepherds.

WickedScorp said...

My 7th grade class was shown GLORY. Then in 8th grade we were shown SCHINDLER'S LIST. No parental consent. Different content, sure; more relevant, okay, but still R. Both very violent. No one complained. Not even a flinch. And I went to a Catholic school. In theory, religion is a good thing. In human hands, it's very often an evil, ugly thing.

Anonymous said...

I know my opinion will not be well received here but Nat I think you may have gone a little too far. I respect your opinion very much and also really enjoyed Brokeback Mountain, but it should not have been shown to 8th graders. Why the teacher just didn't have the kids have permission slips signed is beyond me, but thats besides the point. And if I could defend my faith for a second, it is unreasonable to expect christians not to want to share our good news. It is true that there is a time and place for such things, and this lawsuit is indeed just another black eye on my religion, but when you think about it it would be much easier for us to just keep it to ourselves, thereby avoiding persecution, ridicule, etc. But that is not what we are commissioned to do. I am sorry for what some people have turned my religion into but please don't judge us all because of this and don't tell us not to share our good news. Most of us are just trying to help. Thanks for listening...

SamuraiFrog said...

Okay, sex scenes aside, the issue with this family is obviously the gay content. This girl is being reported as being either 12 or 14, but she's in 8th grade, so she has to be 14. Show me the 14 year-old kid that hasn't seen sex in the movies already. At LEAST in the movies.

The anonymous commentor above me hits exactly the button I hate by saying "Most of us are just trying to help." Well, that kind of condescending attitude may sound justified to some, but religious people need to realize that there are many who neither need nor want their "help." In this situation, the girl's family either needs to put her in a parochial school or homeschool her, because a public school is not the place to make a stand on religious accomodation. Sorry, it's a state building, we don't have to respect your superstitions. And until the ones who are "just trying to help" stop apologizing for the ones who want to hurt us because we don't want to play in their club and stop letting those people be their calling cards, I don't have to listen to them. Stop letting those people speak for you.

Excellent and eloquent post, Nathaniel. I gave you a Thinking Blogger award on my blog if you want to pick it up or whatnot. Seriously, thank you for writing this.

Anonymous said...

Great post Nat - one point - "religious people" are not all fundies - are not all intolerant - are not all homphobic - are not all afriad of diversity - etc etc - as a religious person - I really hate that the behavior of frankly a few ( most religious people belong to mainstream religions that are NOT fundamentalist) wing nuts is seen as what all religious people do think etc -

it was a substitute teacher - an obviously dumb substitute teacher -

NATHANIEL R said...

i hope i made it clear in my post that i realize that not all religious people are this way... but until more of them start speaking out against the religious people who are... well, it just casts a very ugly light on religiosity you know.

i was raised religious. i was religious for much of my life but this past decade has been excruciating to watch in terms of the shadow side of faith.

and in terms of "sharing good news" --that's all well and good too. As long as it's a private one on one matter. It just has NO business being legislated or being asked to be respected in schools. In order for their to be peace in the world government cannot be ruled by religion. Look what that's done to the Middle East.

but yes. not smart to show an R rated movie to an underage class...

RC said...

no joke the teacher made a poor decision.

even from the standpoint that this was a controversial movie at the time of it's recent release.

major network television would not choose to show this film in it's unedited versions for many reasons...many of which are the same reasons they wouldn't show personal favorites of mine like The City of God or Amorros Perros.

And say the teacher did show City of God or Amorros Perros, the parents may not have screamed as much because some kid goes to school and says "I saw some film about Brazil that was kind of weird," or "I saw this Spanish film that had dog fighting in it."

Parent may not react...but parents know what Brokeback Mountain is, and obviously this is not just an R-Rated film...in the American mind it is a controversial film.

The teacher would have met much less resilience if the teacher had shown Schindler's List or other more-widely accepted R-rated film.

Poor judgement for sure...but suing the school ststem? And for that much money. That's sort of silly too...okay, it's really silly.

And the film was shown by a substitute teacher...believe me the Chicago School system has got to have more problems than this to deal with.

Anonymous said...

I think one of the problems is that the parents probably have not SEEN the movie, and the negative connotation that they've been given I'm sure makes Brokeback sould like gay porn. That might be one reason for their reaction.

Glenn Dunks said...

So, I think we can all agree (whether you're straight, gay, religious, athiest, whathaveyou) that showing the film was in poor judgement for no other reasons than it's rated R and it does have sex scenes and violence and swearing.

And, ya know what, showing Brokeback Mountain could actually be have a negative effect. If there was someone in that class who is thinking he or she is gay and then speaks up saying he/she liked the movie then they're going to be labelled a "fag". I've been in eighth grade. We've all been in eighth grade. We all know how cruel eighth graders can be if they sense weakness. And how would that effect the young person. They're getting a very early lesson that if you show signs of even possibly being gay you're going to be labelled and insulted.

But, yeah, still. The parents sueing for half a million dollars is absurd. Unless that girl is going to need half a million dollars in psychiatric sessions there is no need for it.

Ask for the teacher to be sacked. But this is greedy.

I didn't ask for half a million after being forced for take religious education classes as a kid, did I?

Marius said...

You were forced to take religious education classes as a kid? Hm, did you grow up in Alabama? Anyway, I think you should sue. Thank goodness I was raised by a liberal (feminist) mother.

Anonymous said...

$400,000 is a scare tactic. If it actually made it to court, they might win but they wouldn't get anywhere near that amount. They're hoping the school board decides that it's easier to settle than to pay for a protracted trial. The grandparents will probably get financial assistance from various fundie groups.

mosquito wenzi said...

As a Christian, I agree with you Nathaniel, that the Evangelicals often disgrace Christianity.

Every so often someone needs to storm through the temple in a steaming rage upsetting tables. We may be overdue.

Anonymous said...

A little late, but I really don't think it's that bad for a teacher to show a R-rated movie to a room of 8th graders. They're 13, and if you believe the statistics, a lot of them have experimented with drugs, alcohol, and sex. Why not show a thought provoking movie, and engage the kids in a discussion about what love and love lost is? This lawsuit, if anything, indicates how limited our viewpoint of education is in this country, and how scared some people are about honest and frank discussion. I'd be willing to bet the same parents wouldn't raise an eyebrow if their daughter was shown "Saving Private Ryan" in that same class.

Second, I was raised Catholic, and still am a practicing Catholic. Until I moved to NYC, I floated from church to church, looking for a religious community that accepted everyone - members of the glbt community included. And there are some Catholic churches that accept the dialogue, and priests that welcome the gay community. Problem is, until more people begin leaving the more closed minded churches and joining with the more progressive members...church leaders don't have much of an incentive to speak out.

Anonymous said...

This teacher had no business showing the film to these aged students, and it's within the parents' rights to dictate what their child watches at this stage. And like it or not, the same sex scene could have actually been traumatic for the kid to see, just like it could have been traumatic to see a heterosexual sex scene. That's the extent of it I think -- the tolerance message shouldn't have been the tipping point to cause this trouble, but with this religious nut family, it might have been. There's also some violent scenes in this film too, and that could have causes some distress with an impressionable child.

NATHANIEL R said...

i think that watching consensual sex scenes that are not explicit... i wonder how that can be "traumatic" per se when you are already going through adolescence?

I was pretty naive at 13 but I never once felt traumatized by any sexual scenes I saw. the closest I came was being "grossed out" by 9 1/2 weeks. I wanted to not be watching it. But being grossed out -- well, squeamishness is not psychological distress. it's just immaturity.

Anonymous said...

You're not in that child's shoes to know what they consider to be traumatic or not traumatic. There are aspects of "Brokeback Mountain" that can be problematic for younger children to see. Violence is one, and sexual content is another, homosexual or heterosexual.

Jack H. said...

A) In my school system, and hopefully others, the teacher is obligated, if any children are younger than 18 (which, I'm hoping, they were in an 8th grade class), to at least alert the parents they are showing an R-rated film. Multiple times we had to get our parents to sign sheets of paper when I saw far less (in my opinion) questionable films in HIGH SCHOOL. I had no problem with the films I saw in classes then, but I think it's still a good choice to send that form home, just to make sure everyone's on the same page.

B) I'm not a fan of this movie. Nothing to do with the homosexual thing, everything to do with the fact that I find Ang Lee boring and predictable as a director. So excuse me if I'm a little biased.

C) I agree that you can't really say how mature someone is at a given age. Sure, Nathan, YOU could've handled it then, I might have handled it then, but people develop differently, for reasons both internal and external. In my Creative Writing class this semester, this girl wrote a story about High School that everyone in the class saw as too immature and overly innocent for High School. Turns out she's a Mormon from Utah. Not even a nut, just her experience was very different from, say, a Protestant in the Northeast (myself). That said, this clearly happened in Chicago, which I would consider a fairly liberal locale.

D) I don't think the same family would've sued if it were Passion of the Christ, but someone else probably would have and would be fully warranted in doing so. If anyone showed an R-rated film in my kid's classroom and I didn't know about it, I would be upset, but I doubt I would take legal action. I agree with Paul c: there's something else at work here, like a hunter-killer lawyer. I don't think the action fit the issue, but action should have been taken, like just addressing the school in particular.

Anonymous said...

I went to Catholic schools up until college, and we didn't have consent forms. I remember seeing R-rated movies in 7th and 8th grade - however, they were incorporated into the lesson plan. Maybe this school district HAD consent forms, and the poor substitute teacher just didn't know the procotol.

And true, people do come from different experiences and different backgrounds - and it's impossible to really say what is and is not traumatic for another person. That being said, instead of cutting out virtually everything that can be construed as offensive, children would be far better served if they learn how to discuss WHY something might be offensive / traumatic, and explain how their background and their experiences contributed to that. Granted, for this to happen at the 7th and 8th grade, it needs to happen from day one when kids walk into the school doors (which, sadly, it doesn't).

In any case, I have such a knee jerk reaction to anyone who resorts to lawsuits as a way to resolve something. Resolution only comes from open discussion, not slamming your fist down on a table and demanding that things go your way. There are a million and one other ways to get remedies for alleged wrongs; lawsuits just ruin any opportunity for open dialogue.

Sad thing is - given the nature of the public education system, the school will probably settle with the family.

Anonymous said...

I think it's sad that ,out of all the things that went on in chicago, this story got the most attention. Not the one were a 16 year old boy got onto a CTA bus and shot a gun multiple times Killing a honor student and wounding four others....utterly sad.

NATHANIEL R said...

that is sad, agreed. but this is a film blog so that's why it's being covered here.

anonymous --i know i'm not in that child's shoes but i'm saying simulated nonexplicit consensual sex ... I really worry about that being considered "traumatic" why would sex which is part of life and a positive part of life, be something SO frightening to cause all this fuss. Violence seems to get much less trouble and it's NOT a positive part of life. It doesn't make people happy. It doesn't bring them closer to people they love.

seriously it's fucked up that we think of sex as disturbing and traumatic to watch and violence as OK (see also: MPAA rulings)

Here's something that's not being discussed: this is the type of family that would also send the child to "therapy" if the child claimed any sort of gay identification. So this family cannot be trusted. It's just as likely they'd sue if their child announced she was gay --and she'd still end up in "therapy" and the family would still call it psychological distress.

in other words: this type of family has issues.

Julia --good point about lawsuits closing dialogue.

Anonymous said...

No matter how the sex was portrayed, it was still there to view for an audience that wasn't supposed to see it, and it still could be confusing and disturbing to a kid that hasn't been exposed to those kinds of images before. Not everyone subscribes to the "all sex is natural and beautiful" school of thought to teach to minors, and if this kid's family is one of those families that don't, then that's their right.

This is the equivalent of saying "B/c you didn't have the progressive and tolerant response to seeing this film that you were suppose to have, I reject that you could have actually been traumatized by this film or that you could have had any negative reactions toward seeing some graphic images of violence, sex, and nudity". That's really arrogant to legislate what proper reaction someone's suppose to have over seeing a work of art, especially a minor that shouldn't have seen this film in the first place at the hands of a negligent supervisor.

goatdog said...

It did say that they had complained about their grandkid being assigned books that featured profanity, so it's entirely possible that they would have taken the same tack if the teacher had shown any of the other R-rated films mentioned above. Not saying it's likely, but it's possible.

NATHANIEL R said...

anonymous - it may read as arrogant but realize that I've stated previously I don't think anyone is required to share anyone else's views, including mine.

I also don't reject --as you suggest --that sexual imagery can be disturbing or received negatively by people. But I also don't think it's possible to go through life never being disturbed or challenged by anything. And I think kids are much smarter than we give them credit for being in this weirdly infantilized culture that pretends that nobody knows anything, sees anything, talks about anything, or understands anything until they turn 21.

I just think there are much larger issues at work here if minors who are almost in high school have "psychological distress" and need $400,000 worth of therapy when they discover that people actually have sex. (They do?????!!!!!!!!! OMG)

they already know this.
They can see it on TV.
They're already talking about it. If their parents are responsible parents they've already had the birds and the bees conversation.

On A Broader Note
I'm reading this book right now called "Made to Stick" and it's about how some lessons stick with us and some fade and it details this one grade school teacher who taught kids about prejudice by having a class simulation where kids were divided by eye color and forced to wear collars for a whole day if they had the "inferior eye color" --immediately taunting began, kids with the superior eye color abandoned their inferior friends, new cliques formed, and a little microcosm of prejudice happened right there for all to see in real time. The next day the teacher apologized to the class and said she had got it wrong and it was actually the other way around. The collars were switched and the formerly inferior kids were deemed superior and all of the biases shifted but the same phenomenon occurred. The third day it was abandoned and the lessons was explained. The kids from that class room today still mark it as one of the most profound experiences of their life...and in various interviews or what have you they are found to be a tolerant bunch who understand how difficult painful and completely stupid random prejudices are.

But...

surely that could not have been a pleasant experience for them.

What I'm trying to say here is educators to some degree need to be free of parental interference. I can't imagine a teacher getting away with two days of a sociologically experiment that was emotionally difficult for the kids nowadays. Even if it ended up teaching them something very very valuable that lasted them a lifetime.

I just don't think parents with their own obvious issues should be in control of the larger educational system which effects far more people than just their own kids. I think that educators should be in control of the educational system.

Anonymous said...

I'm not saying kids should be infantilized in our culture, but "Brokeback Mountain" was not age-appropriate for that audience, and they (the child and the parents) had a right to have the negative reaction that they had given the circumstances of how the film was viewed. Teens can be exposed to whatever when they are at an age to properly handle it, and obviously this was not that age for this teen. And if this teen was traumatized by what was seen in this film, I don't think it works to get on a soapbox to legislate how they should have reacted to the imagery. Maybe this experience could have been a positive one for all involved if the teen had watched the film at an older age and then had a discussion with the parents about it (no matter how heated). Or even the family watching it together and started debating it, the discussion that would result could be illuminating. But that's not what happened.

But whatever, you're not changing my view either way, and I'm not getting through either. Impasse.

NATHANIEL R said...

i'm not trying to legislate anything... it's the family who is asking the law to trump the real world to protect their particular beliefs and the government cannot possibly cater to every "faith-based" whim.

but i don't think we disagree as much as you think. I've said myself that it was not appropriate to show it. but not appropriate and "psychological distress" ... there's a huge chasm in between.

MC said...

See, I would be more on that family's side if they hadn't complained about books with profanity earlier.

But my question is this: I remember when I was that age, and if I was being shown something in a class that was really traumatizing me, you can bet your ass I would have said something and got out of that situation.

Did this student go to the principal and tell them what had just happened... because it was a substitute teacher, so the repercussions for the student wouldn't have been that grave to report it if it was that serious?

I somehow think that it more likely went down this way: Girl sees movie and is not really as messed up by it as it is being claimed... she gets home and discusses the day with her grandparents... who being familiar with the reputation of the movie, begin telling her why said film is immoral and evil, and told her that she needed counseling after seeing the movie.

And with America being the litigious country
it is, we naturally have a lawsuit... one which I think has a motivation that is other than money. I think the real goal here is going to be censorship... because I am sure that a settlement will have a provision that children are not going to be exposed to certain kinds of materials, and it will be worded in such a way that if a parent or community group complains about something... like profanity in a book for instance, it will be easier(and cheaper) to remove said items that it used to be.

Now I am not agreeing with the movie being shown to that age group, but there are a lot of questions left unanswered by this whole thing.