Here is one.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...
He wasn't arrested for violating the 2-minute rule. He was arrested for disorderly conduct.
I agree we don't need that sort of story line in schools. That is the issue. Yelling a school board members in a public forum, isn't the way to fix it.
As blatant as the story language is, he should've been able to get other parents behind him, and even threatened contributing to delinquency in minors with nice ambulance-chaser letter.
And I thought "give her the business" repeated over and over in Catcher in the Rye was direct.

No he should NOT have left, his questions were being avoided. Only one reason for them to avoid answering. And NO the cop did not "have to" arrest him. And shouldn't have.

There are a lot of interesting threads in this discussion. Let me chime in on a few of them:

I think that khalling hit the nail on the head with her comment of 'no expectation of being arrested for speaking at a BOE meeting'. This is not a venue where you expect that 'going a few seconds over' or even 'filibustering' would get you arrested. Yelled at, yes; arrested; no. And I do not think that two minutes is a really long time in this context.

'Unacceptable' comments by not-Rand-PC-participants (ptewie...what a revolting phrase to even type...need to wash my fingers now) should be welcome as long as they are comprehensible. I make the latter proviso because I almost always look a redacted comments and my most common reaction is, "What the heck did [person] mean by that?" The comments on this topic were all interesting and to the point (except one - see below) and I think they contributed to the discussion. Though I am wallowing in reading/participating in generally intelligent dialog amongst people who have some of the same values I do, I welcome outliers: they give context and sometimes new perspective to the conversation.

What the heck does Reardon's marital infidelity have to do with ape-shit? I mean, it is realistic, it is pertinent (can't tell you how many times I have seen marriages like this in real life) and I consider it improper only in that he did not advise his wife up front that he was going to have an affair. And that he caved to blackmail because of it...oh well: it was a different world when the book was written.

Jan

If you dig a little beyond this article, it went more like:
-He made his statement
-He started interrupting other speakers and making comments to the board
-He was asked to leave
-He refused
-He was arrested.
I'm sure the cop didn't want to arrest him for such a dumb thing, but had to. He probably got a lot of press out of his refusal and arrest, but he should've just left.
Doubt the school board membership is going to survive this.

I can't imagine why he would use this school, if the situation is what you say. Here is the sequence of events I think you're describing:
1. School issues a controversial reading assignment.
2. School holds a parent meeting.
3. One parents voices his opinion that the school should not assign this reading.
4. Another parent offers the straw man that the other parent is for banning books and stifling free-speech. This parent violates the 2-min rule, but the school doesn't object b/c he's stating the position they believe in.
5. The first parent feels slandered and says, "Wait what he said about me was wrong."
6. The police asked him to leave b/c it wasn't his turn to speak. He said you'll have to arrest me, and they did. (I'm less clear on whether they were going to arrest him anyway.)
7. The school likes this policy b/c it allows them to give public events that offer the illusion of listening to their customers without actually listening to their customers.

What a mess. This is why I hate gov't. A normal operation never would have had a bogus hearing. They would have said, "Sorry, this is our program." or they would have offered him an some alternative. I can't stand the gov't CYA hold-a-bogus-meeting approach. The first time I smelled that I would be out of there.

I'm glad you enjoyed it. I wish that I had thought of it myself.

" It was reasonable for the parent to assume that attending the meeting and even speaking out of turn would not land him in jail"
Yes. Once they got him out of the room, there was no reason for an arrest. There are two reasons to arrest someone:
1. The police officer says the person is breaking the law and refuses to stop.
2. The police officer says he did something that likely would result in jail time if the suspect is convicted.
I don't understand the concept of arresting people for things they've stopped doing and for which the penalty is less than jail.

It seems to be the answer to everything these days: if you don't want to deal with someone rationally, call the police. They will not only remove the person, but find something some sort of criminal charge to hang on him or her.

Beats thinking and/or taking responsibility, I guess. Especially for people who cannot think.

If this nonsense were going on in my kids school, I'd just move them somewhere else, as we did with the hippies last year. We are decent at raising money for something like protecting the environment. We're no good at meetings with no children present and parents literally singing and dancing about saving the rainforests. We thought it would be good for our kids to have some low-intensity people in their lives; that was a mistake. I'm LOL at the memory. "How was the meeting?" "It was a bunch of f#(%ing hippies singing and dancing. WTF!? I've got $hit to do. I left."

I don't spend a lot time arguing with vendors who are caught up in politics or don't want to play ball.

I hadn't heard that before -- "government school" instead of "public school" -- but I love it! It gets rid of the deceptive Newspeak, and tells it like it is!

Absolutely... there is also a difference between a sergeant-at-arms and an armed police officer. While they both have the right, indeed, duty, to maintain order at an event, the sergeant at arms does not rely on civil and judicial police powers of law enforcement and arrest to enforce the "rules of order". Yes, I have seen unruly protesters removed by police for disrupting a city council meeting, but not after being asked to maintain order, and certainly not for responding to an argument in violation of a 2 minute rule.

In addition, since the daughter was there, it was a good way for these "educators" to reinforce the lesson that when one presents a rational argument against the powers of the legally emplaced heirarchy the expected result is excessive force to make sure those present understand the empowered's actions and decisions must never be challenged. I also noted they were trying to shame her into silence using their official rules by making her give her residential address, even though it was already on record. That she stood up to them... well... I bet she is now receiving some "extra-special individualized instruction" by her teachers, at the behest of the school board.

And I thought things were bad in California...

To me this is an interesting case of freedom and liberty, which are related and not the same. It would be interesting to hear some intelligent commentary about it.

I think this is one of the reasons people are frustrated. It was reasonable for the parent to assume that attending the meeting and even speaking out of turn would not land him in jail. He had the freedom until his liberty was removed. Every other parent in that meeting and now parents all over the country who have seen the video are left wondering...do I have liberty to speak out of turn at a school meeting? What is the censure? Am I just asked to leave? Will I be forcibly removed for asking a reasonable question or stating a reasonable point? In this case we see a man speaking reasonably, albeit out of turn, and he is removed from the room and arrested. His daughter is left behind, clearly shaken. I think the schoolboard can expect a lawsuit. We'll see how it turns out. In the meantime, alot of parents who don't want to find themselves in that position will think twice, freely, before speaking at a school board or city council meeting, anticipating a liberty might be infringed. Or alot of parents can freely petition for their liberties by asking that the meetings not include policemen who are clearly there to intimidate since there is little precedent for violent school board meetings. As Hiraghm pointed out, the school board is made up of elected officials, and this one needed to be reminded who pays their salaries and who they work for.

I highly recommend it. :)

"The district will take immediate action to revise these policies, to include notification that requires parents to accept controversial rather that opt out. Furthermore, the notification will detail more specifically the controversial material." Does anyone know what this means? Must parents read the book or the notification and "accept controversial material"? If they object, isn't that "opt out"? Why is "Semen, sticky and hot, pooled on the carpet beneath her" considered allowable for 14 year-olds in the first place?

I'll have to read that, LetsShrug.

THANK YOU!

Yes...and the book I'm reading right now, Credentialed to Destroy by Robin Eubanks, pieces the puzzled of why and what is happening to our schools together nicely. It's been in the works for a loooong time. The public is finally in the mental state (oblivious) needed for the final push of it's agenda.

Another argument for private education. I refuse to call what they do as "public" education. As Neal Boortz has said for years, it is government education.

I attended a good number of school meetings,, though through the last 30 years of the last century. What do we have going here in the 21st? I do not recall any time limit rules that get speakers arrested. I don't recall seeing any police save for student sporting events and one very unusual (not ready for prime time) professional wrestling match in a high school gym. So what lunacy do we have here now? Some overkill Big Brother Obamanation PC PTA SWAT thing going?

there is a difference between winning a ribbon and breaking a courtesy rule when your daughter's education is the prize.