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.