Re: Why Jodi Hoffman must be called a 'Dumb Cunt' and told to 'Go Fuck Yourself' at all costs, by TruthMonger

["wabe" <wabe@smart.net>]

THE FOLLOWING IS AN OPINION,
(this is a forged post anyway)

So I read Jodi's lawsuit as it is posted
on her web page.  I'll post some interesting
parts below.  Keep in mind that I'm not
a lawyer, nor do I play one in cyberspace...

Basically the lawsuit (supposably) is(was?) against
a school board in Florida where Jodi sent
her 3 children to middle school.

Jodi seeks mucho casho for emotional damages
she was inflicted by having to discover and
fight the sex-ed class.  Apparantly she originally
was one of the mothers who opted her children out,
but the school fumbled (or the child "forgot" to hand the
paper back in) and they took the class anyways.  After
one day, she yanked the kids out of school for a week,
and engaged on the legal battle we see here.  She also
seeks to shut down (or heavily amend) the sex ed class,
along with the newspaper part of a civics class, and
she wants more supervision of the children's internet
access.

As far as I can tell, oddly enough, the internet part
of the case is the only part with any real merit. (She
doesn't want her children using the internet at school to
see pornography while she isn't watching.)  That's reasonable,
and the school could have someone watching (or claim to)
to avoid it.

There's a lot of whining about the "secular humanism" of
the school which is entirely without merit and sounds foolish
in the context of a legal paper.

Selected interesting points are as follows:
(claimed as the school board's damaging sex ed class. . .)
  c) giving inaccurate and incomplete information about HIV/AIDS
transmission, by claiming students should not worry if their cut-free leg
was splashed with HIV positive blood;

  How innaccurate is this?  Do we have some "studies?"


  k) failing to emphasize abstinence from activity outside of marriage as
the expected standard for all school-age children and failing to teach the
benefits of monogamous hetero marriage;

This is CRAZY!  Not only does she want them to accept whatever she believes
as the "expected standard" but
she wants them to expound upon the glories of a boring sex life! :>

l) failing to emphasize that abstinence is a certain way to avoid
out-of-wedlock pregnancy, ly transmitted diseases, including acquired immune
deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and other associated health problems; abstinence
was only briefly mentioned and then ridiculed at length;

Not true! As claimed in her previous points (see 'bloody leg' above)

m) failing to respect the conscience and rights of parents and students;

respect is a hard thing to measure, and is often something EARNED.

  n) in addition, the opt out letter failed to fully and properly advise
parents of the nature and content of the lecture so that parents could
meaningfully decide to let their children opt out or attend the lecture;

Actually has some merit.

(Then the school board showed a laser disk purchased from the "homosexual
propagandizer" ABC which...)

c.) failing to promote an awareness of the benefits of abstinence, by
failing to equip students with abstinence decision-making techniques;

That last phase is just funny!

e.) promoting a secular humanist philosophy by teaching children that they
alone should decide when to become ly active;

hmmm....

(Now they have the GALL to buy some newspapers and provide them to the
children....these newspapers:)

a.) favoring, justifying, promoting, condoning and/or providing biased,
inaccurate and incomplete information about homo , by failing to discuss
adverse mental, physical and emotional consequences of engaging in homo
behavior and not discussing the changeability of orientation;

If they had advised the students that some of them could, if they wanted,
become homosexuals, would that
have been more proper?


  d.) failing to teach monogamous, hetero marriage as the expected standard
to prevent ly transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy;

HAHAHA, isn't homosexual marriage a better way of avoiding pregnancy?



Then Jodi objects to some newspapers being shown in geography class which
contain an
"adult" advertisement section (aparantly)  Here are the whole of her
objections to this particular point:
  a.) providing inappropriate material as part of curriculum (one ad for an
adult video store invites customers to bring their wife, girlfriend,
boyfriend or all three);
  b.) providing material that does not promote core values;
  c.) providing material which does not promote the contributions made by
women to society, such as ads for sex-for-sale businesses;
  d.) failing to promote an awareness of the benefits of abstinence and the
consequences of teenage pregnancy;
  e.) failing to teach monogamous hetero marriage as the standard;
  f.) failing to teach respect for family and marriage;
  g.) failing to promote a moral society;
  h.) encouraging early activity of children;
  i.) contributing to the delinquency of minors by encouraging activity.

Those were very funny!  She is a comic in the classic Milk and Cheese sense!
I especially
loved c) which claims that ads for sex for sale businesses are contributions
made by women to society!
I wholeheartedly disagree!  How can she be sure the ads were placed and
created by WOMEN!?  Couldn't
a man have made the ads?

Other problems Jodi had with sex ed were:

a.) giving inaccurate, incomplete or biased information about masturbation,
by teaching there is no evidence that it is emotionally harmful, when there
is substantial evidence to the contrary;
  k.) failing to encourage respect for parents as authority figures by
telling children they can make decisions without consulting or relying on
parents' advice;

  l.) establishing a secular humanist philosophy by teaching, for example,
that children are in charge of their bodies and are free to make decisions
based on what they feel is the right thing to do at the time and by
excluding parents and other adults from decision-making processes;

Further explainations follow:

42. The actions of Defendant in paragraphs 25-28 , 30-32 and 34-40 were
outrageous, intentional and/or reckless and were intended to cause plaintiff
JODI HOFFMAN severe emotional distress and as a result of said acts,
Plaintiff suffered severe distress.
43. Plaintiff suffered an inability to sleep properly, met with the
publisher of the Miami Herald to ask that the ads be removed from the
schools, and suffered other emotional injury, loss and distress, became
anxious, worried about the safety and morals of her children as a result of
Defendant's conduct.


She then whines about the word "orientation" being added to the school's
policy of anti-discrimination
because "the undefined class known simply as " orientation" appears to
protect persons who could pose a threat to the health and safety of
students, impair the right of the school board to reject applications for
employment based on good cause and who, under 231.02 (1), may not be of good
moral character."

Among the many things she demands are:

(m.) Order that the school board institute a balanced comprehensive health
curricula, one that emphasizes abstinence until marriage and fidelity within
marriage,

  (5) Money damages for Defendant's intentional infliction of emotional
distress on Plaintiff parent and for the loss of educational opportunity to
Plaintiff's minor children.





Summery:

I WISH I could say that she was only going after the money.  In this case,
that would
be a severe case of moral improvement.  Specific phrases jump out of her
case ("failing to promote a moral society") that nail her down as a
Fundamentalist
Christian with an agenda, using the Law as one arm of her attack.  She ranks
up there
with those terrorists in Texas who filed liens against practically everyone,
in my opinion.