jgifpeg - Exactly - 'you say' he took it the wrong way which is your opinion and speculation, completely or not. The same goes for the students saving the teacher in the end, as you say 'there are many reasons for which the students could have stopped them' - again, speculation. Also, yep, we don't have the all of the facts, which is why I tried to look at other points but based my thought on their punishment on the fact that making something like that will likely jeopardise one's position in a school, regardless of speculation.

dnr928 - tell that to all the teachers struggling with their students and coping with pressure from students in and out of the classroom as well the worrying numbers of crime against teachers committed by students and that's not even all of the recorded crime or intention of criminal activity. Also, so what if it was a teddy bear? The teddy bear is a factor that can be replaced by anything, but it does represent a threat to the teacher involved, real or imaginery and no one should be made to feel threatened in their job - and in some areas you can read the same on any sign in places such as banks, post offices and public transport for example .

bouncing around ADORA:

I'd like to see all of this movie in it's original nature.

The expulsions were too much imo, a week to a month suspension (or less) would've probably been necessary, yet these kids shouldn't be recieving that much money after what they did.

And if this film was distributed/shown on school grounds by these students, I don't think these people have that strong of a case at all. Although vast, freedom of speech has it's limits too in the public education system. It's mandated in a lot of United States high school's published policies/rules that there be certain consequences when a teacher or a student's life is threatend on school grounds/property/time. (Both directly and pending upon the circumstances likely with this instance, indirectly) I don't know about other high schools here, but mine required that the parent and the student sign a contract/agreement stating they understand these rules and policies at the beginning of the year. School officials have to be strict when it comes to issues like this, in fact these sorts of things have been stepped up here in the States post-1999's Columbine High School shooting. (With all the intentions to keep schools safe[r].) And back in my high school, the protocal would've been at least a suspension, and pending upon the students' behavioral status with the school, he or she might've been expelled.

Then again, this case is kind of like the ordeal earlier this year with the electronic signs promoting the Aqua Teen Hunger Force movie in Boston. A lot of people don't have the same humor/entertainment or art ideals/etc. as other people. A "suspicious" electronic animated sign with only a character giving the finger comes across as obscene/threatening to some or most people, while not to those who are familiar with what the sign is promoting. Here it's a similar instance. We have 4 boys who made a film, with mostly-positive/non-threatening intentions behind it (or so I perceive at this point) , but it communicated accross to others as something far worse or different.

But how would you guys really feel if you were the target(s) of the teddy bears in this movie, and you have had a couple negative confrontations with the movie's creators beforehand?
For me I would certainly be questioning these boys' intentions, but I wouldn't be throwing the axe at them that hard. (Or hardly at all depending upon what I saw in the film.)

I agree with you Travis05. It is true that there is a bit of a worry factor about the movie as it does involve hurtful/threatning activity towards a teacher. I also agree that it may have just been a case like the advertisement in Boston. There really is no way to know if they were just overreacting or not without watching the movie first.

HOLD UP! I FOUND THE VERDICT AND THE TRAILER FOR THIS MOVIE ORDEAL:


And here's the trailer for the movie that was produced by the students:

__________________________________________________ ____________


My position now: WTF?! Expelled over that? That is very loony amateurish "fun for them" in my perspective. I was expecting something far darker and serious. -__-.... Then again, it's only a trailer, it doesn't show the full controversy. Those kids now need to make a sincere public apology to the teacher + whoever else, and enjoy their dumbfound $$,$$$.

Now this is somewhat interesting. I still don't agree with the monetary amount and I find it surprising that they have been off school since October. I know these things take time, but alternative arrangements should have been made before now.

I would hardly call it winning, except for the money they have months of work to catch up on and their teachers and school board aren't going to forget, they had better remember that the exams that count which are supposedly marked by anonymous impartial examiners/teachers from other areas aren't always marked by such individuals and usually by your own teachers. Again, it's like my point earlier - the judgement reflects how lucky they are to live in a place where education is a right and hence that worked in their favour because they were out of school when they should have been in school - elsewhere they would have learned the meaning of appreciating it and would have been better disciplined by their parent(s)/guardian(s). The school would have had a better chance if alternative arrangements had been made as stated, but then again that is the parent's responsibility too and that factor should have played a part in much lesser monetary pay off.

This is where a contradiction lies. The previous judge stated the behaviour was out of order in many ways and that she believed the 'teacher' targeted in the movie was not a coincidence yet the new yieled and undermined the school board on a technicality. Unless there is further comment ommitted from the article, it also doesn't show that the new judge stated what the school should have done according to law, instead just saying what it shouldn't have done.

It depends on the after effects in school. Will the teacher still feel threatened and perhaps ridiculed now especially if other students make fun of the situation?

The second article - yeah, teachers really don't mind films made in connection to them with South Park being the inspriation .

I'm not sure about the district's argument about the student's not using their district appeal options before suing. Appeal options given by institutions tend to be unhelpful and never looked at properly if done by those not familiar with law - so I can see why the student's parents felt the had to go elsewhere (or go official) BUT the solicitors involved should have gone through it on their behalf instead of straight to court. Did they see this as a cash cow and publicity shot?

That I agree with.

Yep it looked like the publicity worked - now it might be going to a film festival - I doubt (as jgifpeg originally said) it might have been made for a film festival (although of course it was a possibility) but after months in controversy, it might see its way to one. However, since it isn't clear from the articles whether both judges concur that the name of the teacher wasn't coincedental - the question of permission is still there.

One 'positive' thing about a film festival opportunity now is that under editing the film can show a lesson i.e. wanting revenge against a teacher for something said in class (unless inappropriate and unwarranted) is not the way to go and that one should evaluate one's own behaviour first and 'battle' against such temptation. However, it could also be edited to get rid of the 'worst' bits and make the film look harmless and even more people will ridicule what happened.

The film itself - I can't tell much from that trailer. What I can say though is, no matter what something looks like to an outside spectator, being the 'victim' or person used in something without permission is a very different thing. Threats no matter how subtle or amateurish are no laughing matter, particularly when in societies where there little respect for teachers and a fear of classroom discipline. It is that total lack of ability to disciple properly in the classroom (no I don't mean the cane - I mean the fear of fair disciplining lest there be retaliation) that led to all this 'big' action in this case, which could have been handled by the teacher/principal/parents. As that is not the case, those immediately involved couldn't deal with it and it went to court.