Tag Archives: Freedom of Speech

Why Hasn’t Obama, Reid Labeled A Black Muslim Cop Killer A Domestic Terrorist?

Why Hasn’t Obama, Reid Labeled A Black Muslim Cop Killer A Domestic Terrorist?

Ismaaiyl Brinsley Black Muslim cop police killer

A deranged, racist black Muslim male killed two New York police officers in cold blood.  It took the main stream media, even Fox News, at least 24 hours before they began to refer to this killer as Black or Muslim.

Last month a white Missouri police officer was attacked, while in his car, by a black thug with a criminal background and the white officer is immediately labeled a ‘Racist’ by the media even though he was the one attacked.  This shooting then grows in to huge riot and looting that not only caused destruction to many businesses but also cost the lives of several innocent white people and injury to many others. (See stories below).


Related:


Cliven Bundy
Cliven Bundy

Meanwhile, back in April near Los Vegas, a white cattle rancher named Cliven Bundy was attacked at gun point by our US Federal Government over turtles.  Luckily for Bundy a very large group of armed citizens showed up to protect him from our Government. The Feds smartly tucked tail and ran being heavily out-gunned by the US citizens.  (see story)

 

Reid, Chinese forcing Bundy
Harry Reid

Democratic Senator Harry Reid from Nevada quickly labeled Bundy a ‘Domestic Terrorist’ (see video).   Bundy has always been a law abiding citizen working on his farm contributing to society.  But Reid called him a domestic terrorist even though he harmed no one!

 

Fort Hood Shooter Nov 2009
Hassan

Nidal Hassen killed 13 people at the Ft Hood Army base in Texas. He was a devout Muslim who the FBI had connected to terrorist groups overseas.  His killing spree was labeled ‘Work Place Violence’ by our government even though this was a Muslim terrorist act and recently said Nidal said he wants to join ISIS.

Collen Hufford beheaded at work by Muslim Oklahoma woman
Collen Hufford beheaded at work by Muslim

Last month a white woman in Oklahoma City was beheaded at her desk at work by a Muslim black male but this too was labeled work place violence.

The pattern here is obvious:  If a black man or Muslim, and heaven forbid he’s a black Muslim, commits a violent criminal act such as burning a young white teen girl to death or hacking off a white woman’s head, they are labeled as violent acts, not Domestic Terrorism.

But let a white man herd his cattle and protect himself against an illegal invasion and greedy armed confrontation by our Federal government, and he’s labeled a Domestic Terrorist.

Our government has continued to label Americans protecting themselves as ‘Extremists’ and ‘Domestic Terrorist’.  These are NOT people who are going out attacking people or committing crimes; these are law abiding citizens who just want to be able to protect themselves.

The Feds sent 400 Federal agents to Alabama a few months ago to prepare to fight against these Domestic Terrorist.  Where are the Feds when it comes to fighting in Ferguson or Berkeley or New York?  In 2010 Time Magazine did a story on how white right-wing militia groups are the biggest threat to cops.

Oath Keepers militia armedNot one of these militia groups has killed nor attacked a cop!  In Ferguson, it was these right-winged militia groups that actually stood up for the police and citizens of Ferguson.

But blacks and Muslims are now calling for random acts of killing of cops.

Harry Reid, Obama, nor any other politicians have forcefully condemned the two police assassinations in New York.  Blacks were marching in the streets chanting:

“What do we want?! Dead Cops!! When? Now!”

Yes, we have Freedom of Speech.  But when it crosses the line into violence or incites people  into violence, it becomes illegal and unconstitutional.  This has been upheld by the Supreme Court.  So these protest in Ferguson, Berkeley, and New York that are inciting violence are illegal.  Obama has even encourage these protesters saying they have the right to protest.  But they do not when its illegal…according to the Supreme Court.

The blacks in Ferguson and around the country are saying burning a business is a legitimate form of protest.  Is this not inciting violence?

It is an illegal protest when it incites violence.  Did you see all the stories above on the white people who have been brutally beaten or killed because of these protesters inciting violence?

Have you seen any government agency stopping these illegal protest that are inciting violence?

Have you heard anyone from our government saying what these blacks are doing is an act of Domestic Terrorism or even illegal?

Our country use to be ‘We The People’ but has become ‘We The Government’.  Our government is quick to attack white people and label them ‘Extremists’, ‘Domestic Terrorist, ‘Racists’ or now ‘Constitutionalist‘.

This is not the USA that I grew up in.  We are no longer the greatest country in the world.  Very sad to see the downward direction we are heading due to an out of control government.

TN City Bans Negative Social Media Comments About City Government

TN City Bans Negative Social Media Comments About City Government

city council meeting officials

At a December city commission meeting in South Pittsburg, TN, commissioners voted 4 to 1 to enact a policy forcing city contractors, employees, elected officials, and anyone doing business in any capacity with the city to sign an agreement stating that they will not make any negative comments on social media about the city or its employees, elected officials, and contractors.

Social media and mobile technology have empowered civic activism on levels before unseen. Matters that once went on behind closed doors now emerge in vivid detail on YouTube, and activists, alternative media journalists, and everyday people use sites like Facebook and Twitter to express themselves on issues that would have in the past been ignored by mainstream media outlets. However, the increased transparency and civic engagement come at a cost to elected officials and bureaucrats who prefer doing business in smoky backrooms without debate or public comment.

According to Chattanooga Times Free Press, city officials in South Pittsburg, TN have been overwhelmed by negative comments on social media and consequently enacted a new policy, passed in a 4-1 vote at a December city commission meeting, banning all elected officials, city employees, city contractors, and anyone else doing official business with the city from making any negative comments on their private social media accounts about anyone or anything with any connection to city government.

The policy falls short of criminalizing negative comments by citizens not directly affiliated with the government, but does force elected officials, contractors, city employees, and anyone else doing business of any kind with the city to sign a contract which stipulates that they be punished in the event that they violate the rule. The rule specifically states that affected parties are banned from making negative social media comments about the city itself, its elected officials, and its associates, which would seemingly include private contractors.

Commissioner Jeff Powers, a supporter of the policy, explained his frustrations with social media comments to Chattanooga Times Free Press, “It seems like every few meetings we’re having to address something that’s been on Facebook and created negative publicity.” He also said, addressing critics of the policy, “The first thing everyone wants to say is ‘I can’t post anything on Facebook.’ Well, you can. Just not [anything] that sheds a negative light on any person, entity, board or things of that nature. You can go ahead and post all you want.”

Commissioner Paul Don King, the lone board member who voted against the measure, said, “But what we [the board] are trying to say is that if I’m a city employee, you’re trying to tell me what I can say at night. I call that freedom of speech. I can’t understand that.”

Mayor Jane Dawkins said the measure was aimed at silencing what she called “out-and-out lies and untruths.” City Attorney Billy Gouger gave his opinion on the rule’s impact on freedom of speech, “What this policy tries to do is reconcile that right with other rights.”

Banning elected officials from making negative comments about the city or other elected officials seemingly transfers significant power to an administration backed by a majority, as dissenters, such as Paul Don King in this case, could in the future be accused of violating the rule while advocating policy positions on social media websites like Facebook and Twitter. Also, city employees appear to now be banned from commenting on their consumer experiences with private businesses that incidentally have contracts with the city.

FEC Republicans Vow to Fight Regulations on Online Political Speech

FEC Republicans Vow to Fight Regulations on Online Political Speech

Chairman warns of abuses of power in efforts to roll back Internet speech protections

AP
BY: Washington Free Beacon

Republicans on the Federal Election Commission are vowing to fight regulations on online political advocacy that they say would chill free speech and potentially lead to politicized targeting of Internet writers and video-makers.

The commission’s chairman is warning that such regulations would allow the federal government to impose onerous new regulations on websites such as the Drudge Report or the Washington Free Beacon.

“I vow to fight any additional regulation on online political speech,” FEC chairman Lee Goodman said in an interview.

Freedom of Speech First Amendment regulate protect

At issue is a recent FEC ruling on a series of YouTube videos made by a conservative group called Checks and Balances for Economic Growth that criticized various Obama administration policies.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a litigious liberal group owned by pro-Hillary Clinton operative David Brock, brought a complaint against the group claiming that it violated FEC rules by failing to report expenses associated with those videos.

The commission deadlocked on the question. Its 3-3 vote resulted in a dismissal of the complaint.

In response, the commission’s top Democrat on Friday issued a statement that FEC Republicans have interpreted as a call to roll back 2006 regulations that exempted free online issue advocacy from FEC reporting requirements normally applied to paid advertisements on broadcast media and the Internet.

Freedom of Speech First Amendment regulate protect US map

In a statement on Friday, FEC vice chair Ann Ravel called on the commission to revisit that regulation. The FEC should consider rules that would impose disclosure requirements on certain online political speech, she said.

“Since its inception, this effort to protect individual bloggers and online commentators has been stretched to cover slickly-produced ads aired solely on the Internet but paid for by the same organizations and the same large contributors as the actual ads aired on TV,” Ravel said of the 2006 regulation.

Ravel said she will convene experts next year to discuss ways that “the Commission’s current approach may or may not fit with future innovations.”

While no regulatory language has yet been proposed, Goodman and his Republican colleagues on the commission are already pushing back against what they say is an unworkable attempt to regulate online communications that will chill free speech.

The problem is that Ravel’s approach to the issue contains “no limiting principle,” Goodman said. In attempting to crack down on those “slickly-produced ads,” the FEC could ensnare countless Internet users who simply communicate their political views online.

Ravel did not respond to questions about her proposal, such as how she would propose differentiating between “legitimate” online issue advocacy and content that she feels must be more tightly regulated.

Goodman said the panel’s Republicans are united in their opposition.

“Commissioner [Matthew] Peterson, Commissioner [Caroline] Hunter, and I are steadfast in our opposition to any new regulation of political speech on the Internet,” he said.

The 2006 rule exempted some online political communications from FEC rules requiring that political advertisers report their expenses to the commission. It specifically targeted “issue advocacy” ads, which do not call for the election or defeat of candidates (as opposed to “express advocacy” ads that do).

Ads that are both available for free online and aired through paid broadcast media buys are still subject to standard reporting requirements.

“The Commission recognizes the Internet as a unique and evolving mode of mass communication and political speech that is distinct from other media in a manner that warrants a restrained regulatory approach,” it wrote at the time.

In contrast to paid advertising on political websites, issue advocacy offered for free through online media warrants a carve-out from disclosure rules, the commission wrote.

“Unlike other forms of mass communication, the Internet has minimal barriers to entry, including its low cost and widespread accessibility. Whereas the general public can communicate through television or radio broadcasts and most other forms of mass communication only by paying substantial advertising fees, the vast majority of the general public who choose to communicate through the Internet can afford to do so.”

Far from enabling the type of corruption that federal regulation of paid political speech aims to prevent, Goodman says that online political speech has done the opposite.

“The Internet, for the last 20 years, has greatly democratized political speech,” he said. “People of modest means with an inexpensive personal computer have been afforded the opportunity to comment on politics and elections on a level playing field with large, well-funded speakers on the Internet.”

A reversal of the online media exemption would not only fail to stem corruption, Goodman said, it could lead to an enforcement regime that would be completely unworkable and vulnerable to political pressures.

From a practical perspective, he explained, there is no way for FEC to effectively and fairly monitor the Internet’s massive volume of political communications in order to decide what merits regulatory scrutiny.

It would require “nothing short of a room full of bureaucrats sitting on computers every day combing YouTube and other websites in an effort to identify posters and to begin investigating that posted political content,” Goodman said.

“And I think that is a very ominous regulatory regime. I don’t think you have to reach very far to see the sorts of images that that raises.”

He speculated that the commission would likely focus on popular online content. “And as a result of that, we would be targeting messages that resonate among people and go viral because they resonate, without any regard for a particular video’s corruptive potential.”

He also warned that the discretion such a regulation would afford federal regulators would open the door to potential abuses of power.

“There is always the risk that a governmental agency would begin picking and choosing who to enforce against and who not to enforce against,” he said. “This is why I support broad and clear exemption from regulation for Internet posts.”

Goodman encouraged Americans to comment on Ravel’s proposal and potential FEC regulation of online speech at the commission’s website.

Democrats Push To Heavy Regulate Conservative News Sites

Democrats Push To Heavy Regulate Conservative News Sites

As the media prepared to vacate newsrooms for the weekend, Democrats snuck in a last minute proposal that the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) be allowed to heavily regulate political content on internet sites such as Youtube, blogs, and the Drudge Report.

Obama FEC Vice Chairperson Ann M. Ravel announced late on Friday that the FEC was preparing new regulations to give itself control over videos, Internet-based political campaigns, and other content on the web. She insisted that, “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the internet and other emerging technologies is long overdue.”

This snap decision came after the FEC deadlocked 3-3 over whether or not an anti-Obama Internet campaign in Ohio had violated FEC campaign disclosure rules. The videos were placed for free on Youtube and were not paid advertising, but they also did not disclose who made them.

Until now, videos and other political content that is not posted for a fee are unregulated by the FEC. Only paid advertising is regulated under election rules. It is this that the Democrats want to change.

“FEC Chairman Lee E. Goodman, a Republican, said if regulation extends that far, then anybody who writes a political blog, runs a politically active news site, or even a chat room could be regulated,” the Washington Examiner reported on October 24.

“I have been warning that my Democratic colleagues were moving to regulate media generally and the Internet specifically for almost a year now,” Goodman told FoxNews.com. “And today’s statement from Vice Chair Ravel confirms my warnings.”

Chairperson Ravel says that it should be illegal for free Internet videos to be used for paid TV advertising. But Goodman points out that Ravel is conflating the matter, and that FEC rules already regulate that situation. TV ads are paid advertising and already fall under regulatory oversight, he said.

Goodman and the other two FEC commissioners who voted that the Ohio videos did not violate regulations lamented the decision by the chair to float oppressive new limits on political free speech on the Internet. “Regrettably, the 3-to-3 vote in this matter suggests a desire to retreat from these important protections for online political speech–a shift in course that could threaten the continued development of the Internet’s virtual free marketplace of political ideas and democratic debate,” they wrote.

Twitter Sues U.S. Government To Release National Security Request Numbers

Twitter Sues U.S. Government To Release National Security Request Numbers

Twitter logo

Twitter has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, so it can release more information about national security requests. The company wants to publish its full transparency report.

It alleges that its First Amendment rights to free speech are being violated by rules that prevent it from disclosing the quantity of national security requests it receives.Twitter can publish the number of national security letters and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act orders it receives between “0 and 999,” and calls the inability to speak about the government surveillance “unconstitutional” under the First Amendment.

“The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is already considering the constitutionality of the non-disclosure provisions of the NSL law later this week,” Twitter Lawyer Ben Lee writes an a blog postTuesday.

The lawsuit, filed with the U.S. District Court of Northern California, follows an agreement between the U.S. government and Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Microsoft, and Yahoo — but not Twitter — about court orders they receive related to surveillance. While the rule also applies to Twitter, the company wants to invalidate the agreement that prevents being published the number of national security requests.

U.S. government officials told Twitter Sept. 9, that a draft Transparency Report submitted to the U.S. government around April 1, 2014, was not sufficient . The information contained in the transparency report is classified and cannot be publicly released, because it does not comply with the government’s framework for reporting data about government requests under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the National Security Letter statutes.

Defendants named in the lawsuit include Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, the DOJ agency, James Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI agency of the United States; and the FBI agency.

Rep. Campbell: Government, IRS, EPA Are ‘The Police State’

Rep. Campbell: Government, IRS, EPA Are ‘The Police State’


Rep. Campbell: Government, IRS, EPA Are ‘The Police State’
Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) (AP)

(CNSNews.com) — Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.) called the government, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “the police state” at a Financial Services Committee hearing at the Capitol on Thursday.

At the July 10 hearing, Legislation to Reform the Federal Reserve on Its 100-year Anniversary, the Federal Reserve Accountability and Transparency Act (HR 5018) was discussed, legislation which would require “the Federal Reserve to provide the Congress with a clear rule to describe the course of monetary policy.”

The act would also require the Fed to conduct cost-benefit analysis, require transparency on bank stress tests and international financial regulatory negotiations, and would order the Fed to disclose the salaries of highly paid employees.

An opponent of the measure, Dr. Simon Johnson, a professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, likened the Fed being audited by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is the government’s auditing office, to a “police state.”

In response, Rep. Campbell said, “The GAO? Having the GAO audit a government agency is a police state?”

“The police state is the government they’re auditing, that’s the police state,” Campbell said. “The police state is the IRS, the police state is the EPA, the police state is all them. That’s the police state. Auditing is not a police state. Now you’re really ticking me off.”

Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-Mich.) who introduced the Act, said the Fed must be accountable to the American people.

“Over the past several years, the Federal Reserve has been gaining unprecedented power, influence, and control over the financial system in Washington, while remaining shrouded in mystery to the American people,” Huizenga said.  “The standard operating procedure cannot continue. We must lift this veil of secrecy and ensure that the Fed is accountable to the people’s representatives.”

Huizenga’s statement was echoed by the chair of the committee, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas).

“Most recently we have seen a radical departure from the historic norms of monetary policy conduct from an unprecedented use of 13(3) exigent powers, to select intervention and distinct credit markets, to the facilitation of our sustainable national debt to a blurring of the lines between fiscal and monetary policy all of which presents large and unwarranted risk to our economy,” said Hensarling.

But opponents of the measure called it “tedious,” “expensive,” and like “audit the fed on steroids.”

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.).

“Today, under the guise of reform, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have put forth legislation that will cripple the Federal Reserve’s ability to promote growth, stabilize the economy, and in times of extraordinary crisis, take decisive action to avoid an economic collapse,” said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.).

“This legislation is a concession to the opponents of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act,” she said.  “By making the Fed’s rulemaking more tedious, more expensive, and subject to endless legal challenges than those who do not agree with these decisions. Unfortunately, this proposal follows a Republican roadmap we have seen too often on this Committee.”

Similarly, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) said, “This bill also goes far beyond the ‘audit the fed’ bill that this House voted on last Congress. As one newspaper described it, it is ‘audit the fed on steroids.’”

“While it’s true that this bill doesn’t force by law the Fed to follow a particular formula for interest rates, it does attempt to bully the Fed into following the Republicans preferred monetary policy,” said Maloney.

Huizinga stood by the bill and questioned the constitutional standing of his colleagues, saying, “I cannot figure out why so many of my colleagues are willing to hand over their constitutional standing, I would argue their constitutional duty, to fulfill oversight responsibility.”

Man Told to Remove American Flag Because ‘It’s a Threat to Muslims’

Man Told to Remove American Flag Because ‘It’s a Threat to Muslims’

American-Flag-on-balcony
Since when did it become offensive to display the American flag in America? According to Webster, TX resident Duy Tran, that is precisely what he has been told by his apartment complex management. They have told him that he must remove the flag because it was a “ threat to the Muslim community.” (Watch Video Below)

KHOU, the CBS affiliate in Houston, reports on this demand by the Lodge on El Dorado. After moving into the community, Tran proudly hung an American flag from his balcony.  He says the flag means a lot to him because he has had a lot of friends who have died defending it.

Tran says he was shocked when the apartment manager told him the American flag had to be taken down. He said, “What really stunned me is that she said it’s a threat towards the Muslim community. I’m not a threat to anybody.”

The station reports that, upon asked for the manager’s account of what happened, the property had an officer escort them off of the property and only provided the following statement.

While the Lodge on El Dorado admires our resident’s patriotism, we must enforce our property rules and guidelines. Such guidelines maintain the aesthetics of our apartment community and provide for the safety of all residents. The apartment community already proudly displays our country’s flag in a safe and appropriate manner at the entrances to our community.

KHOU indicates that there were numerous other patriotic symbols that could been seen on balconies throughout the property. Tran insists that he will not remove his American flag stating, “I’m gonna leave my flag there, as an American, until she shows me proof that I don’t have the right to leave my flag there.”

US Military Blocks Conservative Website InfoWars

US Military Blocks Conservative Website InfoWars

Website censored for over 700,000 active duty servicemembers worldwide
U.S. Military Blocks Infowars.com

by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON, Infowars.com 

The U.S. Military has blocked Infowars.com, with active duty personnel contacting us to confirm that the website is inaccessible to over 700,000 servicemembers worldwide having been labeled “violence/hate/racism.”

A servicemember forwarded the above print out which shows that the Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI), which serves “more than 707,000 Sailors, Marines and civilians in 620 locations in the continental United States, Hawaii, and Japan, making it the largest internal computer network in the world,” is censoring Infowars.com in order to “safeguard the security posture and/or to maintain the operational integrity of the NMCI.”

The message is entitled “Access Denied by NETWARCOM Policy,” with the block being approved by the “Naval Network Warfare Command Battle Watch Captain.” Click here for an enlargement showing the message.

To emphasize, the block is not being imposed by an external web filtering software program used by the Navy, but by the Navy’s own private intranet system. The NMCI is so vast that it is second only to the public Internet in size, comprising 4,100 servers that handle over 2.3 petabytes of data.

We also received the following email from a separate active duty member of the U.S. Military confirming the block.

“Hello, I visit infowars every day @ home and at work to keep up to date with latest news that I cannot find in the mainstream media. I am active duty military and my fellow comrades and I follow infowars and which usually ends up in discussion. Just recently my comrades and I have noticed the Infowars website has now been blocked on all our computers. I believe its another attempt for the govt to censor out the truth. I feel this story should be shared and at least infowars should be notified. As for my comrades and I we feel like its another attempt to take our freedoms which we fight for. Thank you for everything you do. Let the truth be told and never quit. If there is anything we can do please let us know.”

Yesterday we reported on how the Blue Coat corporate web filtering service, which is used by many large companies, had blocked Infowars.com by placing it in the same category under the banner of “violence/hate/racism.” The ban was lifted following complaints.

It goes without saying that Infowars.com is an independent news website and has nothing whatsoever to do with advocating violence, hate or racism, unless of course you define “hate” as being adversarial to government corruption and abuse.

It wouldn’t be a stretch to suggest that Infowars’ aggressive recent coverage of the VA scandal may have been a primary reason for the upper echelons of the U.S. Military imposing the ban.

Infowars routinely receives emails from users who are unable to access the website because it has been blocked by filters used by government facilities, transport hubs, large corporations and other institutions.

Father of 9th Grader Arrested For Speaking Out Against Sexually Explicit Book

Father of 9th Grader Arrested For Speaking Out Against Sexually Explicit Book

Father Arrested For Speaking Out Against Sexually Explicit Book As Required Reading
Father being arrested
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 in New Hampshire.

From the book: “he was inside her, pumping so hard that…the carpet was burning her legs…he clamped his hand over her mouth and drove harder…”

Yes this is directly from the book!  For a 9th grader..15 or 16 years old!  And its REQUIRED reading by the school!  Read it for yourself (here).

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.

 Source: Bennswann.com