« | Main | VMAN: Josh Hartnett Piles on the Glam »

03/16/2006

Brokeback High Expulsion a Hoax, Kid Now in Real Mess

As news about Brandon Flyte's expulsion over his film project Brokeback High spread across the internet at lightning speed, a larger problem developed for the student. His claims weren't true.

He did create the film Brokeback High, and did receive high marks for it in his English class, and did show it to his marine biology class with the "snuggle scene" in it. He was punished for that, but not expelled.

However, now the teens claims of expulsion have thrown the school into chaos because of the resulting anger generated by Flyte's false claims. The school has been faced with threats of arson and violence. The school superintendent Roger Woehl says he received 10,000 emails. Woehl: "He has disrupted the school. This is clearly a behavior we don't find acceptable."

On his website, Flyte appears proud of the coverage his story has received, even leading readers to the Oregonian, which today revealed the student's hoax.

There are plenty of gay and lesbian kids across the country who suffer in oppressive and intolerant school situations. Whatever Flyte's motives for fueling the hoax, he has made something of a joke of that reality. While it is good to know that there are thousands who will stand up and cry 'foul' when an incident like this occurs, it was the wrong thing for Flyte to do. The internet is a lightning rod for stories like this.

I was fooled, plenty of others were fooled too — MSNBC, CNN, the Advocate, (if you can trust Flyte!). I guess I understand now why my emails and calls to the school weren't returned. "Wow, I appreciate your support," he said, in an email to Towleroad. It seems that Flyte not only created the hoax, but perpetuated it as well.

High schooler in trouble for lie on Web site [oregonian]

UPDATE: Brandon Flyte has updated his site once again with a response to the Oregonian article. While someone has already published his response in the comments section of this site, I'll print it again after the jump just for the record. With my attempts to contact the school going unanswered, it's been very difficult to get to the bottom of this story. Brandon's most recent comments after the jump...

Previously
Brokeback High Back in Session [tr]
High School Student Expelled for Brokeback high Movie [tr]

From BrandonFlyte.com:

"By now many if not all of you have seen the story in the Oregonian, a story I awoke to with no little amount of surprise. It's expected with a story that gets this kind of momentum and is over such a controversial issue to receive a negative response, and considering the overwhelmingly positive response it's expected that the negative response should be overwhelming.

It's also unsurprising that after such a strong response, the school should try to use every tactic they have to eliminate that support, and the disruption it's caused their school. While I can appreciate their stance in trying to get the school back to normal -- and I do NOT agree with or condone the apparent threats of arson and violence that the school board says they received -- I also do not appreciate their attempt to discredit me. An attempt which has clearly begun to work.

Let me be clear on something. I never expected this level of publicity. I posted this in a few places I thought it might be of interest, but, maybe foolishly, never expected more than a few dozen people to notice or care. The attempts of my opponents to paint me as an attention-monger are lies of their own. I never contacted most of these media outlets. The Oregonian, CNN, MSNBC, the Advocate, and others, all contacted me. My website initially started as a place to inform my friends at school and elsewhere what was happening with my situation. I never sought this out. I linked to them as a point of interest in how far the story was spreading, for those who were reading my site, nothing more.

If I only wanted publicity for my film, I would have posted the film in its entirety immediately. But I did not expect this kind of attention -- in fact, I expected that those who viewed my site would already have seen the film. And I certainly would not have linked to the Oregonian if I had been aware of the underhanded tactics the administration planned to use against me.

To address Superintendent Woehl's claims, why did he refuse to elaborate on my "series of misbehaviors"? Aside from my sketchy attendance -- to which even the Oregonian recognizes I have already admitted -- I have had no prior disciplinary actions taken on me. What misbehaviors is he talking about?

In addition, the superintendent claims that the class assignment forbade sex, nudity, or violence. Yet two boys in each other's arms is not sex, bare chests are not nudity (or else the entire swim team should be suspended for indecent exposure), and my film did have some violence which I was not asked to remove. Likewise, several of the other films had violence in them that was allowed to stand.

If as Woehl claims I was landed in trouble for not following the guidelines of the assignment, and was not a blanket ban on the content of my film, why were the guidelines of the CLASS assignment upheld in a DIFFERENT class?

I have seen PG-13 movies shown at my school, during classes with nothing else going on, that had more explicit sex scenes than what I showed. I saw a film made for the assignment with explicit drug use that was not asked to be removed. Why should I be disciplined for showing a film that violated no rule in the class I showed it?

Additionally, he claims that the transfer was not mandatory. Whether the rest is a misunderstanding or not, this is an absolute lie. I asked specifically when I was called into the office and informed of the transfer if I had a choice in the matter, and I was told that I did not. If I had, I would not have chosen to attend the Community College, as I wanted to spend the remainder of my senior year with my friends.

I have not been a model student throughout high school, but in the past year I've been trying to turn it around, and to have everything thrown away in the home stretch is disheartening and insulting.

As I said, I can understand Woehl's desire to stem the disruption caused by the apparently thousands of unpleasant e-mails he's received. And, now that he's tried to brand me a liar, I know can't convince anyone of my side if they want to believe him. I'm a kid with bad attendance and he's an adult who runs a school district. People will believe him. The Oregonian clearly did, and many of the blogs that have been watching this story have started spreading that version of the story. But I hope that some people out there know a smear campaign when they see one.

I'm just a kid fighting a bunch of adults who are protecting their names by now trying to destroy mine. I plan to hold my head high and continue fighting for the truth. It seems I was premature in saying that my part of the fight had been resolved."

Sphere: Related Content

Posted 8:27 AM EST by Andy in Current Affairs, Film & TV | Permalink

Comments

Being taken advantage of is sad and disappointing--and I certainly fell for it--but I hope that a good thing comes out of it: make a donation to The Point Foundation to help support queer kids and their allies.

Posted by: Tyler | Mar 16, 2006 8:41:18 AM

He will make a great Hollywood player some day.

You have to laugh at some level with all the vitriol that when on here over the last few days.

OK Andy now we need some photos of hot guys to argue over or just enjoy.

Posted by: Donald | Mar 16, 2006 8:49:16 AM

Well who would think someone would actually lie about something like that? Stuff like this always confuses me. I don't get why people lie about things like this. Maybe it's for attention. I just don't know.

Posted by: matt | Mar 16, 2006 9:03:01 AM

Well, jeez.

I actually defended that dumbass brat.

Somebody owes me a handjob.

Posted by: spazmo | Mar 16, 2006 9:14:24 AM

maybe he was satirizing the gay man's need to always cry "conspiracy!" whenever something doesn't go there way?

Posted by: mac | Mar 16, 2006 9:24:48 AM

With no disrespect to this blog or any other blog, this is a good example of how news without proper investigative reporting can cause great harm. But, blogs are what they are and basically link to other stories on the web. There is absolutely no excuse, however, for CNN, MSNBC, or the Advocate for not finding out the facts before reporting them.

Posted by: Patrick | Mar 16, 2006 9:47:38 AM

I fell for this hoax as well. This kid is the worst kind of fraud, taking advantage of our fight for equality for his own selfish reasons.

Posted by: Ian | Mar 16, 2006 10:03:38 AM

Hoax or no, it still wasn't porn.

Posted by: tom cruise | Mar 16, 2006 10:18:21 AM

What a jerk.

Posted by: Peter | Mar 16, 2006 10:32:30 AM

EXPEL HIM !

Posted by: chet | Mar 16, 2006 10:39:10 AM

well, in a cyberworld where we are encouraged to recreate ourselves, market ourselves and do most anything for hits and attention, this hardly comes as a surprise.

now, post more pics of Josh Hartnett and keep that traffic flowing!

Posted by: Aatom | Mar 16, 2006 10:40:30 AM

And the lesson learned for bloggers?

Check your sources. And don't publish until you've verified. You're a journalist, act like one, not a rumour-monger.

Posted by: Alan F | Mar 16, 2006 10:41:41 AM

To those that are complaining the Andy didn't check his fact before publishing this story. This is a BLOG, not CNN. The medium was designed to publish information quickly, cheaply, and with the author's personal slant. Almost all the people that write these blogs have 'day jobs', it is not their job to fact check every single thing. So give it a rest. If you are here to mainstream, fact-checked accurate to the letter news, you're in the wrong place. Take Blog posting for what they are.

Posted by: Ian | Mar 16, 2006 10:52:39 AM

I say we let Ohio Senate hopeful Kaiser (ironic name by the way) put the kid to death.

Posted by: wayne | Mar 16, 2006 10:55:47 AM

nice scolding alan f...now make sure you follow through and contact & scold all the other media outlets that ran the story. bet you'll have a busy day, won't you?

Posted by: basis4insanity | Mar 16, 2006 10:57:39 AM

Maybe this will teach you that your usual knee-jerk reactions need to be tempered with a bit of skepticism.

Posted by: Robert | Mar 16, 2006 10:59:09 AM

So much for defending the hell out of Brandon.

I told ND30 in the previous thread:

>...I'm more than willing to admit my homophobia-take looses most all of its steam if you can demonstrate that the school has forbidden similar showings of heterosexual post-coital moments.<

The Oregonian article that's linked says that "...[t]he assignment, however, forbid sex scenes, nudity and violence. Flyte removed the snuggling scene for the English class and got rave reviews for the film. Several other students also had to remove scenes from their projects..." so the request made of him was no different than the other students. While the scene isn't sex and it isn't kiddie porn, I can see how it violated the the assignment.

So no homophobia there and no homophobia in my original argument. Still an iconoclastic kid, and obviously a gifted film maker, who also knows how to play to the preconceptions of the crowd for his own benefit.

Posted by: Jody | Mar 16, 2006 11:24:34 AM

I think he means "teen's" rather than "teens."

Posted by: Ryan | Mar 16, 2006 11:24:35 AM

He's a STRAIGHT kid - now why wasn't I surprised by his fraudulent behaviour.

Posted by: hun | Mar 16, 2006 11:24:47 AM

if i were to father/adopt a kid there is little doubt that he would pull something like this. and then i'd have to explain to him why attention-gettting stunts are bad. and then, he'd brush his over-long bangs out of his tear-swollen eyes, turn and look in my face. "i learned by ... by watching you. [sob]"

aaaaaaaaaaaaaand scene.

Posted by: rod | Mar 16, 2006 11:25:29 AM

Yes, I will admit to having a certain amount of egg on my face over this one. I probably should have been a bit more skeptical. My skepticism, as it was in this case, can often be overshadowed by my enthusiasm to defend the underdog.

Posted by: andy | Mar 16, 2006 11:37:58 AM

No, I think he did mean "teens".

Posted by: Kevin | Mar 16, 2006 11:38:02 AM

I must admit some confusion. You first report the students side of the story as fact, without hearing the other side of the story. You then hear the other side of the story, and report that as fact. Posters who once had unwavering support for the student, now have adandoned him. For those of you who are like me, and would still like to get to the bottom of the story, here is Brandon's response to the Oregonian story on his webpage.

http://www.brandonflyte.com/

Posted by: Aaron | Mar 16, 2006 11:54:33 AM

with regards to Ian's comments--Towleroad isn't just a blog, it's the best source of gay news on the net, and i'm willing to bet it has as large an audience as the Advocate or Planet Out, or at least is more influential than those sites, because "the right people" (Andrew Sullivan, etc.) read it. i also wouldn't be surprised if CNN & MSNBC picked up the Flyte story because it first got legs on Towleroad, because the MSM has been raiding the blogosphere for stories with increasing frequency. Towleroad is the best gay site not just because it's comprehensive, but because it appears to be reliable. lose that reputation, and at best you'll lose influence, at worst you'll lose readers.

as a working journalist, one of my basic rules is to verify a story with multiple sources before publishing anything, and i do that precisely i know that i can avoid getting burned on single-source stories like Flyte's. Andy, i know you have a day job, but you might at least consider holding off on single-source stories until they look more solid.

i also agree with Robert's comment. Andy isn't the only one who needs to be more skeptical--we all do.

Posted by: Brian | Mar 16, 2006 11:55:08 AM

From Brandon's site:
-----
"...To address Superintendent Woehl's claims, why did he refuse to elaborate on my "series of misbehaviors"? Aside from my sketchy attendance -- to which even the Oregonian recognizes I have already admitted -- I have had no prior disciplinary actions taken on me. What misbehaviors is he talking about?

I have not been a model student throughout high school, but in the past year I've been trying to turn it around, and to have everything thrown away in the home stretch is disheartening and insulting.

Andy, I don't think you were suckered in. Something against the "underdog" did go on, I'm just thinking that it has far, far, far less to do with homophobia and much more over the battle between individuals & groups and young adults & older adults.

Keep sticking up for the little guy. You weren't wrong for doing so.

Posted by: Jody | Mar 16, 2006 12:07:26 PM

Well, I almost thought it could be a hoax. But I choose to believe better in people. Quickly, I'm beginning to feel as though that's the wrong choice.

It reminds me of that university student who went to my school who claimed the FBI went to his house to ask him questions because he took out the "little red book," a chinese communist book, from the library. It made international news and I totally fell for that one.

Well, shame on that kid. Who knows what he was thinking. It's a shame, he wasn't in trouble before... but he'll probably be now (if only to the hearts and minds of students, administration and teachers who will be pissed).

Posted by: Ryan | Mar 16, 2006 12:18:34 PM

Don't blame Andy or bloggers for not 'investigating' properly. Gimme a break! How can you even focus on that? The story was reported by legitimate, real news sources, not just on internet sites. And this kid was the one who was lying, who would have suspected this? It's not the journalists' fault, it's his fault for lying.

Posted by: matt | Mar 16, 2006 12:38:10 PM

I completely appreciate the desire to defend the underdog and you do a damned fine job of it too in most circumstances. As Brian pointed out, being more skeptical of what we read is something we can all do a better job of.

Posted by: Robert | Mar 16, 2006 12:38:56 PM

I thought something was amiss when a friend posted on his Myspace, "You have officially taken this too far" and laughed.

Posted by: Kyle | Mar 16, 2006 12:44:13 PM

Yea, call the kid a liar. Thats fair. You accuse these news sites of not researching their facts, then at the first sign of dissent, you throw this guy under a bus. Absolutely disgusting. Those of you engaging in this should be ashamed.

Posted by: John | Mar 16, 2006 12:45:08 PM

So now that "the other side of the story" has emerged we all are jumping on the bandwagon to 100% believe the other side and totally discredit the kid’s version of the story. I know from my own experience how school administrations will cover their asses and use their power and perceived integrity and "maturity" to discredit a student who challenges them. It doesn't matter how honest the student may be. It seems to me that this kid has been pretty honest about himself from the get go, admitting to his checkered past. I think it is amazing how so many people who seem angered over the lack of two sides of the story seem to now only be considering one side of it. Come on people, stop being such fucking sheep. You are what is wrong with the gay community and with America in general. You are sheep waiting for the shepherd to yell “gi” or “haw” so that you can mindlessly follow the herd or whichever goat happens to make the next wrong turn first. Give this kid some credit and at least consider that maybe he is being railroaded. I'm not saying that he is telling the full truth. I don't know and neither do any of you here. We STILL don't have all of the FACTS. Have the patience to get all of the facts and then the courage to stand for what's right.

How about visiting his site and reading HIS side of the accusations against him. He still seems very credible to me. The Superintendants story just doesn't add up. Read it and THINK and come to YOUR OWN conclusions for a change.

Posted by: Zeke | Mar 16, 2006 1:07:41 PM

Andy,

Before labeling this a hoax, shouldn't you contact Brandon to verify his side of the story? Per Jody's posting of Brandon's response to the "Oregonian's" article, he claims the administration is lying to cover itself.

I think you're jumping the gun. Instead of going where the wind blows, why not find out what the truth is? Surely Brandon's parents would know the truth. Right?

If you believe in defending the underdog, then take the time to research whether the underdog may be the victim of a retalitory smear job! It happens all the time. Just because Brandon is a teenager doesn't mean that school officials wouldn't try to hurt him.

Posted by: noah | Mar 16, 2006 1:26:13 PM

I have to agree it is ironic, as others have said, that everyone here has immediately jumped from believing the kid's side of the story wholesale to believing the school's side of the story wholesale. Neither seems to have been corroborated yet, and Brandon Flyte is still sticking by his story.

I have no idea what's going on, but I'm not assuming the Oregonian story is the end of the matter.

Posted by: Dave Rattigan | Mar 16, 2006 1:26:29 PM

I'm not ready to call it a hoax just because the school administration has told the Oregonian that it was not true. Brandon made it very clear in his postings that the school never called it an expulsion, and that it was he himself who regarded it as that. Brandon's complaint was that his going to the college was mandatory. Now the school says it wasn't. And Brandon called it a transfer.

With all the heat (and threat of legal consequences) on the school administrators, it is very reasonable that they would now say everything they can to discredit Brandon's account of things.

What we're seeing is classic 'he said, she said' dynamics in a case where the heat is on.

Until Brandon admits that he fabricated any part of his account, I am unwilling to flippantly jump on the hoax bandwagon just because the alleged perps claim it is not true. What would you expect them to say, that everything he alleges is perfectly true? Give me a break!

Posted by: Figaro | Mar 16, 2006 1:50:36 PM

Kinda shows how ready we are to consume any "I was gaybashed" story we're fed. Some people on here are now saying they don't believe it's a hoax. I guess what we want to believe often determines what we believe (and isn't it sad that we WANT to believe this kid was expelled).

Posted by: Cyd | Mar 16, 2006 1:56:37 PM

The problem now is in calling it a "hoax" or a "lie." As Figaro just pointed out, Brandon never made any claims vis a vis his expulsion that it was anything under than underhanded and that it was related to his film.

The article in the Advocate news section today indicates that Brandon said the school did bring up his film during the meeting over his "forced transfer" repeatedly.

Still, I'm backing away a bit from seeing this a pure homophobia and leaning now much more to dirty dealings by the admin to a student who just won't fit in, and who used an infraction of the rules as a chance to bounce him out.

Again I say to Andy that you weren't taken advantage of. There is something here, it's just not so clear cut anymore as to what its about. Keep covering this story and all those like it in the future. You do a great job, so good in fact, it's why I read your site right along side the AP news headlines.

Posted by: Jody | Mar 16, 2006 2:03:00 PM

CYD, and what is it that you WANT to believe?

Posted by: Figaro | Mar 16, 2006 2:07:45 PM

Brandon updated his site to answer the claims made by the school. Both stories have equal possibility to them so I think it is best to suspend judgement at the moment.

Posted by: The Angry Fag | Mar 16, 2006 2:13:18 PM

I'm a little fuzzy about what the hoax is here. When I first heard about this a couple days ago I checked the kid's site, and lo and behold the entire story about his being transfered to another school was there, along with the statement that the school did not regard it as an expulsion, but the kid, in essence, did. And that's pretty much how I took it too. He was being thrown out of his school for showing that film.

The only difference I see now is that the school administration is saying the transfer was not manditory, and now they're angry with the kid over the public fall-out over this. Well...duh. You have to figure they're going to go back on the attack here. They were dangling his ability to graduate with his class over his head on the condition of his behavior throughout the spring, which I took as a back handed threat to just shut up and take the punishment or else. My first fear for this kid was that as soon as it became a public blow up-the school would start inventing excuses to make things worse for him. It looks to me like that's Exactly what's happening.

When I saw the headline of this post, I was afraid that there hadn't even been a film made, let alone an expulsion given. So I read the post and I find out that, yeah, there was a film, there was an expulsion, and it all happened because of his showing the film in that class. So...where's the hoax? Looks to me like all that's different now is the school is giving spin.

Posted by: Bruce Garrett | Mar 16, 2006 2:26:32 PM

May I allow myself a very far away point of view?I'm sure Flyte was expecting a "tsunami"gay support,sure a lot of people(me included)were just puppets,sure there is"something behind the curtain"and that he is a perverse manipulator.For me the issue is neither straight kid/gay kids problems or the way the school reacted...Flyte grasped an OPPORTUNITY to be known,recognized,maybe loved.He used the community.A very contemptible way to start a life.Sorry for him.

Posted by: Pierre (from Paris.France) | Mar 16, 2006 2:44:42 PM

Healthy skepticism, even with regards to news reporting, is always a good idea. Even after reading the Oregonian article, it still seems unclear as to all of what has actually occurred in this instance.

But it's also interesting to look at how easy it is to believe the kid's story. Living in an metropolitan coastal city with a large gay population, I'm never certain what is myth and what is fact when it comes to the reported pervasive hatred coursing through, well, non-metropolitan coastal cities, but I do feel like our collective sense is that it's factual. Especially as, even if many more positive images of gays and lesbians exist in popular culture and media, there seems to have been a concurrent increase in expressed hostility (or maybe just attention to those who are hostile) in conservative media outlets.

None of that, however, should relieve Mr. Flyte of responsibility for lying, if indeed that is the case. I just think it points up a collective fear that may need to be examined from time to time. Of course, since our current government has long been in the business of exploiting fear to manipulate ends, our supposed "education president" may have taught that lesson too well to at least one member of the next generation.

Posted by: Jake | Mar 16, 2006 2:49:16 PM

I'm with Bruce on this. I don't see how this is a hoax. Brandon's own web site says the schools wasn't calling it an expulsion, but a "mandatory transfer," which in his opinion is effectively an expulsion. The only point of contention in this therefore is whether the transfer was mandatory, as Brandon claims, or optional, as the administration claims. If Brandon's claim that the school was going to pay for the college courses is true, it supports his claim it was mandatory since it appears that the school is required under Oregon law to do so in the case of suspension or expulsion ("Suspension or expulsion of a student from the regular school program does not relieve the district of the obligation to provide instruction in the residential program in which the child resides or in another appropriate facility"). Moreover, if the OregonLive story is correct about the terms of the project (no sex, nudity or violence), then Brandon did not violate the rules. There was no depiction of sex and the actors were not nude, only shirtless.

Posted by: Craig | Mar 16, 2006 3:03:13 PM

Expulsion, maybe. My attitude is: whatever.

This blog is of course in no way to blame for whatever truth got lost, if any did. But this episode does serve to come at an odd time for me, as I'm strongly wanting to pull the ripcord and get the hell out of the blogosphere. It's just too...much. Too much 'news', too many foolishnesses, too many reports of crap (not, as a rule, on THIS site) echoing crap seen three days ago, and too much time wasted.

And a huge part of my dismay is fueled by my own blog. Too...silly, really.

Posted by: Jacko | Mar 16, 2006 3:16:19 PM

Okay first of all - don't believe anything you read in the Portland Oregonian. The Oregonian is notorious for its biased and conservative reporting. When I lived in Portland there was an an actual riot of several hundred people and the Oregonian didn't publish a single article on it. If you didn't have a TV you never would have know it happened. And second, come on - the school administrators are full of shit. Why suddenly believe them now?

Posted by: Chris | Mar 16, 2006 3:53:45 PM

Pierre, if you just stick to the facts so far available in this case, you can see that Brandon-bashing at this point is not at all warranted.

Makes me think this site has attracted some gay bashers scantily disguised as reasonable people. I wonder how many of the Brandon-bashing posts here actually come from participants (or their defenders) in the case.

Posted by: Bilbo | Mar 16, 2006 3:58:18 PM

Too, too sorry, Craig.

First, your statement:

"Brandon's own web site says the schools wasn't calling it an expulsion, but a "mandatory transfer," which in his opinion is effectively an expulsion."

The Oregonian reports:

"Flyte said Wednesday that he was not expelled or suspended and his being called to the office was 'not a homophobic thing.'"

Now, say the Oregonian is lying.

Next up:

"Moreover, if the OregonLive story is correct about the terms of the project (no sex, nudity or violence), then Brandon did not violate the rules. There was no depiction of sex and the actors were not nude, only shirtless."

From the Oregonian:

"The assignment, however, forbid sex scenes, nudity and violence. Flyte removed the snuggling scene for the English class and got rave reviews for the film. Several other students also had to remove scenes from their projects. The class voted Flyte best actor."

Oh, and did you see how BRANDON admits it's a sex scene?

"I have seen PG-13 movies shown at my school, during classes with nothing else going on, that had more explicit sex scenes than what I showed. "

Of course I understand why you're doing all this in the face of overwhelming fact, Craig; you've built a wonderful edifice of pseudo-intellectualism that all comes crashing down if it turns out Brandon is...um...exaggerating.

That, and you would have to admit that I was right to be skeptical about him, that his behavior was wrong, and that this wasn't something the "gay community" should be freaking over.

Like you'd ever do THAT to a gay conservative.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 16, 2006 4:10:48 PM

> The Oregonian reports:

> "Flyte said Wednesday that he was not expelled or suspended and his being called to the office was 'not a homophobic thing.'"

> Now, say the Oregonian is lying.

Brandon said Wednesday that the transfer (which *he* considered an expulsion but was never officially called such, kind of like the War in Iraq has not ever officially been declared a war) was retracted, not that it had never happened, and that "the school insists this was not a homophobic thing". He didn't backpedal on anything, it's just media spin and paraphrasing to twist his words.

Any time a journalist says "So and so said Wednesday that..." without DIRECT QUOTING, of more than just a phrase here or there, you should question why they didn't use the person's actual words.

> Oh, and did you see how BRANDON admits it's a sex scene?

That's just spin and you know it. Brandon states that they have shown movies with sex scenes in them at school, such that what happens in his film can by no stretch be considered a sex scene in comparison.

Posted by: Michael Scott | Mar 16, 2006 4:17:32 PM

Go away troll. The cuddling you do with today's GOP is what is truly disgusting.

Posted by: Wooldoor | Mar 16, 2006 4:20:52 PM

Mmm, can't you just smell the estrogen in the air?

Posted by: mac | Mar 16, 2006 4:22:45 PM

"Any time a journalist says "So and so said Wednesday that..." without DIRECT QUOTING, of more than just a phrase here or there, you should question why they didn't use the person's actual words."

I question why you just can't flat-out state that the Oregonian is lying.

Probably because you're trying to spin the fact that you're conducting a smear against a journalist who investigated and quoted multiple sources so that you can continue believing only the words of a seventeen-year-old kid who has more than enough reason to lie to cover his ass.

"Brandon states that they have shown movies with sex scenes in them at school, such that what happens in his film can by no stretch be considered a sex scene in comparison."

Hypocrisy on your part, isn't it?

Brandon's actual words:

"I have seen PG-13 movies shown at my school, during classes with nothing else going on, that had more explicit sex scenes than what I showed."

Note the "more explicit", which means that he's not arguing that it isn't a sex scene; he's saying that others shown were worse.

Also, note his cleverly-phrased "during classes with nothing else going on". Does that mean that these movies were approved to be shown by the administration -- or that other students were showing them without official sanction?

Nice try, though.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 16, 2006 4:32:45 PM

> I question why you just can't flat-out state that the Oregonian is lying.

Because it wasn't a flat-out lie, which is what makes it so persuasive.

> Probably because you're trying to spin the fact that you're conducting a smear against a journalist who investigated and quoted multiple sources so that you can continue believing only the words of a seventeen-year-old kid who has more than enough reason to lie to cover his ass.

"Multiple sources"? I see her quoting one and a half sources. The superintendent, and half of one sentence Brandon said in a different context than how it's being quoted.

> Note the "more explicit", which means that he's not arguing that it isn't a sex scene; he's saying that others shown were worse.

Conveniently you fail to note this other part of his post:

Yet two boys in each other's arms is NOT SEX, bare chests are not nudity (or else the entire swim team should be suspended for indecent exposure)... etc.

Emphasis mine.

So debate whether it was a sex scene or not, but don't try to imply he said so.

> Also, note his cleverly-phrased "during classes with nothing else going on". Does that mean that these movies were approved to be shown by the administration -- or that other students were showing them without official sanction?

It means that in the absence of school curriculum, the students were shown movies in class. Movies which bore no relation to the subject matter. My high school did that all the time too. The last day before Christmas break we'd end up watching Star Wars in anatomy or something. And those movies contained content far in excess of the content that landed Brandon in front of the administration. It's really very clear.

Posted by: Michael Scott | Mar 16, 2006 4:43:17 PM

[quote] Now, say the Oregonian is lying.[/quote]

Probably not lying, but mislead by the school. We still don't have all the facts and what the school is saying is very, VERY fishy. Take this paragraph from the article: "But the teen was not expelled as he reported on his Web site. In fact, he was not punished at all, Woehl said. Administrators, instead, offered him a chance to make up lost classes at a community college."
First, Brandon didn't say he was expelled. He said "it’s not being called an expulsion. It’s basically a ‘mandatory transfer’ to the local community college." Second, the school wants people to believe that after showing what you contend to be a "sex scene" and being insubordinate to the instructions of the vice prinicipal, that Brandon's punishment was absolutely nothing? "[H]e was not punished at all, Woehl said?" Are you serious? "[A]bsolutely nothing?" BUT...BUT for the attendance problems he had months ago, they "offered" him the chance to make them up by telling the office clerk to prepare his transcript for withdrawl when Brandon had expressed he did not want to transfer. Get serious, ND30. The school is in full CYA mode and got a conservative MSM rag to do a story on it to give them cover.

Posted by: Craig | Mar 16, 2006 4:45:23 PM

Funny how NDT's comments and arguments always center on "The Sex Scene". Seriously dude, this was no sex scene, no matter how many times you say it is. It seems to me that you are disturbingly focused on what 17 years old's sex lives are like.

And why is it that you continually call this kid a liar and basically say he cannot be believed or trusted, yet you use the kid's own "cleverly-phrased" quotes to prop up up your argument. After going on and on about it being a sex scene, you then take the kid's "more explicit sex scene" quote to prove your point?

I mean, you've shown us all your remarkably insightful debating powers- now give it a rest.

Posted by: Mike | Mar 16, 2006 4:55:16 PM

"And why is it that you continually call this kid a liar and basically say he cannot be believed or trusted, yet you use the kid's own "cleverly-phrased" quotes to prop up up your argument."

That is because Brandon's own quotes reveal and unravel the lies he is telling. It's using the fact that a witness contradicts himself to poke holes in his story.

"Funny how NDT's comments and arguments always center on "The Sex Scene". Seriously dude, this was no sex scene, no matter how many times you say it is. It seems to me that you are disturbingly focused on what 17 years old's sex lives are like."

So what exactly are two boys doing laying unclothed in bed, kissing and fondling each other? What exactly is that meant to portray other than sex?

As for your final crack, you can insinuate I'm a pervert all you like. I say flat out you're a coward who is making sniping and snide remarks about my sex life because he was snookered by a lying seventeen-year-old and isn't man enough to admit it.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 16, 2006 5:13:34 PM

"Get serious, ND30. The school is in full CYA mode and got a conservative MSM rag to do a story on it to give them cover."

Or "gay activists" who took a seventeen-year-old's lies as gospel truth and aren't brave enough to admit it are now spinning wild paranoid conspiracy theories.

For instance, your insistence that the office clerk was preparing Brandon's transcript for withdrawal. Can you cite your source on that, since it seems to be the basis for your argument that the school is "covering up"?

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 16, 2006 5:16:09 PM

"Because it wasn't a flat-out lie, which is what makes it so persuasive."

Yeah, the truth tends to be that way. It doesn't quite fit your fantasies of homophobic persecution, though, so it's not persuasive to YOU.

"Conveniently you fail to note this other part of his post:

Yet two boys in each other's arms is NOT SEX, bare chests are not nudity (or else the entire swim team should be suspended for indecent exposure)... etc"

Of course, he then argues that his admitted "sex scene" should be allowed.

That's the danger of hanging your hat on scared seventeen-year-olds who are being found out and trying to cover their lies; they tend to contradict themselves repeatedly.

"It means that in the absence of school curriculum, the students were shown movies in class. Movies which bore no relation to the subject matter. My high school did that all the time too. The last day before Christmas break we'd end up watching Star Wars in anatomy or something."

Problem is, this is March, they're in the middle of the semester, and I sincerely doubt there's a "lack of curriculum".

Try coming up with another story -- plausible this time, please.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 16, 2006 5:21:19 PM

ND30, it boils down to who's lying and who isn't. Brandon could be, but it is far more likely that the school is since it is completely irrational to believe, especially based on your pornography arguments, that the school would issue "absolutely nothing" for a punishment for insubordination and "porn peddling." Brandon's statements of the events is certainly plausible if not indeed factual. The school's is not. Ergo the school is more likely to be lying than Brandon, especially in light of the negative publicity. If Brandon's statements are true, the school officials and perhaps the entire district suffers from negative imaging as well as possible violations of state law and federal civil rights. If the school's statements are true, the school officals look like idiots for contending that there is "absolutely nothing" in the way of punishment for insubordination but that tranfering to a local college to complete school for offenses that occured months ago should be raised not when the offences were occurring, but months down the line. Okam's Razor. Which is more likelycorrect? My bet is the truth lies closer to Brandon's account than the school's.

Posted by: Craig | Mar 16, 2006 5:31:26 PM

ND30, no one's contradicting anything. You've just decided to see things one way and when things don't fit into that mold, they must be contradictions. The only thing being contradicted is your uninformed assumptions.

If you were paying attention, you'd notice that the sentence you're debating refers to OTHER INSTANCES of movies shown in class. Not Brokeback High.

Besides the fact that the film itself is maybe 5 minutes long, therefore very little disruption, you obviously haven't been to high school in quite some time. There's plenty of down time in most every class -- especially on the cusp of spring break, which occurs in March.

Posted by: Michael Scott | Mar 16, 2006 5:34:47 PM

Meanwhile, I think what I said yesterday to Ryan still remains appropriate today:

"One of these days, Ryan, you'll figure out that gay rights aren't advanced by rushing to defend obstinate and immature children who insist on staging and videotaping inappropriate sex scenes, then showing them in the public school classroom at even more inappropriate times. Gay rights are advanced when people stand up against legitimate discrimination, as did Rosa Parks, instead of creating discrimination to oppose, as you are doing now."

And that's exactly what you're doing. The school district is homophobic. The Oregonian is homophobic. North Dallas Thirty is homophobic. Everyone who disagrees with me is homophobic.

Congratulations. I daresay this has advanced our movement even closer to complete and total irrelevance. It will look wonderful to Oregon voters when they see that gays are running around insisting that "gay rights" give students the right to stage and film sex scenes, then defy their teachers and administrators and show them in public school classes where they have zero relation to the subject at hand, then run screaming to gay activists to protect them and make arson/violence threats against their school when they are forced to take responsibility for their actions.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 16, 2006 5:36:00 PM

Make up your mind, Craig; is it porn, or isn't it porn?

If you admit that it's porn, the school's insistence that it did not punish Brandon looks odd, but then you undermine Brandon's story about how he shouldn't have been punished, but was.

If you don't admit that it's porn, you might prove me wrong, but then your argument of the implausibility of the school not punishing Brandon unravels.

Hence the problem, Craig; you can either deny it's porn and strengthen the school's story against Brandon, or you can state it is porn to undermine the school, but in the process undercut Brandon.

Which do you choose?

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 16, 2006 5:45:15 PM

"If you were paying attention, you'd notice that the sentence you're debating refers to OTHER INSTANCES of movies shown in class. Not Brokeback High."

Uh huh.

"I have seen PG-13 movies shown at my school, during classes with nothing else going on, that had more explicit sex scenes THAN WHAT I SHOWED. "

It does indeed refer to Brokeback High. Try again, Michael, and this time...plausibility.

"Besides the fact that the film itself is maybe 5 minutes long, therefore very little disruption, you obviously haven't been to high school in quite some time. There's plenty of down time in most every class -- especially on the cusp of spring break, which occurs in March."

Funny, in my high school, we were expected to be learning and paying attention in class, not watching unrelated videos.

Thanks for associating "gay rights" with disrupting school classrooms, though; it's much appreciated.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 16, 2006 5:49:19 PM

Oh, and Craig, I'm still waiting for my answer:

"For instance, your insistence that the office clerk was preparing Brandon's transcript for withdrawal. Can you cite your source on that, since it seems to be the basis for your argument that the school is "covering up"?"

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 16, 2006 5:50:30 PM

>Like you'd ever do THAT to a gay conservative.That is because Brandon's own quotes reveal and unravel the lies...<

There are no lies on Brandon's part. If you read his posts on his site, his story is the same today that it was on Monday. If anything, we were the ones seeing more homophobia than was there.

Be that as it may, the evidence continues to mount that the school administration used some crafty tacticts to get rid of young man -- and a 17 year old is a young man, not a boy, unless you want to throw out the English language and start over again with "EnDee Speak" where you make shit up as you go along -- who broke a rule by showing an unedited version of his film to fellow students.

From your posts, it seems you fashion yourself as the gay community's own Perry Mason. Your antics reveal much more of a Barney Fife orientation.

Posted by: Jody | Mar 16, 2006 5:54:41 PM

Try this again. To help, I split the sentence up by emphasis to give you a hand with the reading:

"I HAVE SEEN PG-13 MOVIES SHOWN AT MY SCHOOL, DURING CLASSES WITH NOTHING ELSE GOING ON" is one phrase. This phrase -- which you might remember as an "independent clause" -- is indicating that movies were shown in class on multiple occasions. It also explains that those movies were shown during downtime. You're twisting it to fit your argument outside of its meaning, much as the Oregonian also did.

"THAT HAD MORE EXPLICIT SEX SCENES THAN WHAT I SHOWED" is alternatively what we call a "dependent clause", designed to be descriptive of the independent clause to which it is affixed. In this case, he was explaining his lack of understanding how showing a shirtless cuddling scene could be a sex scene -- and an expulsion (sorry, "transfer") -worthy one to boot -- when they had seen worse in class on other occasions.

Nice try focusing on an irrelevant statement, but the only one you've convinced is yourself.

Posted by: Michael Scott | Mar 16, 2006 5:56:51 PM

This got a little lost:

>Like you'd ever do THAT to a gay conservative.

ND, hop on down from that cross, okay son? It's rather dangerous for you up there, what with all the delusions of persecution and all.

You already got your props for pointing out that this was far less about homophobia than I, or others, first maintained. Act like an adult and move on from your palaver.

Posted by: Jody | Mar 16, 2006 6:08:04 PM

I find it amusing that because I'm calling you out on this, that you make the assumption that I'm a "coward" who was "snookered" by this ridiculous story. I barely believed anyone in this story in the first place, from the school to the pupil and back again, and it was not a surprise at all that it has become such a circus.

Again, it's pretty clear that you love The Debate and are in this argument for argument's sake. I think it's great that this story and others like it serve as a perfect environment for you to tell every else in the gay community how much you disagree with them, maybe because they aren't conservative enough for you. You have certainly stated quite clearly throughout all these posts that THIS is what is wrong with the gay movement, simply because others here were motivated by what they may have perceived to have been homophobia and they felt differently than you. Calling others in the gay community "victims" and equating what some activist do to the actions of Falwell and Robertson, as you do in your blog- it's clear that you don't WANT to come to common ground on issues. You LOVE that clear, dividing line between you, "the gay conservative" and others, those "gay activists"- for whatever reason. Oh well.

Posted by: Mike | Mar 16, 2006 6:08:24 PM

Of course it's "irrelevant" to you, Michael; it nicely demonstrates that said child knew he was showing a sex scene, did it deliberately, and is now whining that he should be excused because it "wasn't as bad" as the others he alleges were shown.

Moreover, he deliberately avoids stating WHO was showing said movies -- perhaps because that would provide facts that would lead to an investigation of a) what was shown and b) what level of screening and authorization took place prior to it.

This is a very manipulative and scheming child. But unfortunately for him, not all adults are as willing to let him off the hook as gay activists are.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 16, 2006 6:09:59 PM

The most interesting part of this, ND30, is that you're lambasting us for taking what we read (Brandon's post) at face value, when you're more than happy to do the same when someone (the Oregonian) happens to agree with the stance you'd already taken.

Is it possible he didn't mention "WHO was showing said movies" because he assumes you'll realize it's the teacher? That the students can't take the room hostage and pop in a copy of a movie whenever they feel like it?

Public schools -- at least all the ones I've ever had any experience with -- even require the teacher -- THE. TEACHER. in case you missed it the first time -- to specifically reserve AV devices like a television and VCR for a class period. Movies -- both the other movies he mentioned and Brokeback High -- do not get accidently shown in class without the teacher's knowledge or consent.

But, like Mike said, clearly you're arguing because you have nothing better to do, not because you actually are interested in finding the facts.

Posted by: Michael Scott | Mar 16, 2006 6:19:11 PM

"You already got your props for pointing out that this was far less about homophobia than I, or others, first maintained."

Was that before or after you called me "Barney Fife" -- an amusing inversion, given that Barney Fife acted first and thought later, much like you and your fellow creatures so ready to see homophobia under every tree and rock.

"Act like an adult and move on from your palaver."

More precisely, you mean get out of here so you don't have to be reminded how a "repressed conservative" was right and you weren't.

Sorry, but I don't intend to let this drop until you and yours admit that you were wrong and that it was wrong of you to make insinuations about my sex life because I disagreed with you. You chose to humiliate others; you yourself can be humiliated.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 16, 2006 6:20:31 PM

[quote]Make up your mind, Craig; is it porn, or isn't it porn?[/quote]

I think my position on that has been made absoutely, abundantly crystal clear to anyone with so much as a nueron firing. Reading is fundamental and you appear to be incapable. Read what I wrote again: "ND30, it boils down to who's lying and who isn't. Brandon could be, but it is far more likely that the school is since it is completely irrational to believe,
ESPECIALLY BASED ON ***YOUR*** PORNOGRAPHY ARGUMENTS, that the school would issue "absolutely nothing" for a punishment for insubordination and "porn peddling."" You are about the only one saying that it is porn. I don't see it even rising to the level of sex. and it doesn't unravel my theory since there is still the matter of insubordination. They told him to take the scene out of the movie (which 1. violates his 1st Amendment rights and 2. isn't specific to the extent that it applied i.e. did he only have to take it out for the English class). The story on OregonLive states "Flyte was asked to play it for his marine biology class" which presumably means that the teacher was the one asking for the showing. The scene was left in for that version, which was not for the English assignment that had the limitations of no sex, nudity or violence and thus the vice principal's request, or order as the case may be, to to remove the scene would not apply, but apparently the vice principal saw it differently. Yet we are lead to believe by the school (which the newspaper sheepishly or willfully followed) that for this insubordination there is no disciplinary action being taken.

[quote]Oh, and Craig, I'm still waiting for my answer[/quote]

The basis on my argument was Brandon's statement on his website, which in light of all the evidence, I find more credible than the lie the school fed to the newspaper, who then repeated it. A lie is still a lie even if it gets published in a newspaper.

Posted by: Craig | Mar 16, 2006 6:21:50 PM

Andy, I think you do a real disservice to the subject matter by graphically displaying "HOAX ?", the reason being that that is the way journalists everywhere suggest a conclusion without risking to declare it forthrightly. Simply ask a question in the headline, like "George Bush Sleeping with Condoleeza?".

This matter is not closed on the subject of Brandon's allegation that he was given a *mandatory* transfer to the college after showing his film. Brandon himself made it clear that the school never admitted that it considered the transfer an "expulsion," only that Brandon himself considered it an expulsion. My God, can't people read anymore? The only thing, to my knowledge, that has happened so far is that Brandon alleged a "mandatory transfer" out of the high school after showing his film, while the beleaguered school administration denies it.

Your headline "HOAX ?" prejudges the outcome.

On the other hand, I appreciate your bringing this thing to out attention.

Posted by: Bugsy | Mar 16, 2006 6:21:54 PM

"The most interesting part of this, ND30, is that you're lambasting us for taking what we read (Brandon's post) at face value, when you're more than happy to do the same when someone (the Oregonian) happens to agree with the stance you'd already taken."

Call me crazy, but in choosing between a manipulative seventeen-year-old and a paid professional journalist at a major paper, I'll take the journalist.

"Is it possible he didn't mention "WHO was showing said movies" because he assumes you'll realize it's the teacher? That the students can't take the room hostage and pop in a copy of a movie whenever they feel like it?"

Odd that Brandon hasn't used the excuse that the teacher allowed him to show his movie then, isn't it?

"But, like Mike said, clearly you're arguing because you have nothing better to do, not because you actually are interested in finding the facts."

Excuse me, but yesterday, that was what I was doing, whilst you and yours were screeching about how this "proved" that the school was homophobic, etc., and how I was unnaturally obsessed with the sex lives of seventeen-year-olds, I was a closet case, etc.

Now that you've been bitch-slapped, you're suddenly interested in "finding the facts". What you're trying to do is cover your ass and try to make yourself look like less of a fool than you are for believing the hyperbole of a manipulative seventeen-year-old who saw a chance for attention and took it.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 16, 2006 6:26:04 PM

"Call me crazy, but in choosing between a manipulative seventeen-year-old and a paid professional journalist at a major paper, I'll take the journalist."

Except that it was the journalist that called him manipulative and you took the bait. Sounds like the journalist was the real manipulator, but since you agree it's all okay, right?

"Excuse me, but yesterday, that was what I was doing, whilst you and yours were screeching about how this "proved" that the school was homophobic, etc., and how I was unnaturally obsessed with the sex lives of seventeen-year-olds, I was a closet case, etc."

I was doing what? Me and mine? Who?

Point out one post *I* made to that effect yesterday on this or any other blog, ND30. One. With my name on it. And I'll concede every aspect of your argument. But since you won't be able to do that, as I MADE no such post, try not to act like such a fool.

What you've proven here is that your feelings got hurt because no one listened to you, and now you're taking it out on a kid you have never met. I didn't say anything yesterday, but today I gotta say, that's pretty pathetic.

And by the way, I know Brandon personally, I know the facts of the issue that you are only presuming, and I can tell you that you're wrong without flinching.

Posted by: Michael Scott | Mar 16, 2006 6:31:33 PM

"I find it amusing that because I'm calling you out on this, that you make the assumption that I'm a "coward" who was "snookered" by this ridiculous story."

Actually, no, Mike, I'm calling you a coward because you don't have the balls to come out and call me a pervert to my face, instead of just insinuating that I have an unhealthy fixation on sex with 17-year-olds.

"You have certainly stated quite clearly throughout all these posts that THIS is what is wrong with the gay movement, simply because others here were motivated by what they may have perceived to have been homophobia and they felt differently than you."

Oh, it's not the fact that they were motivated by homophobia. It's the fact that they obviously can't recognize what is and what isn't homophobia.

Call me crazy, but I don't think the gay community is best served by overreaction and making arson threats against a school for not allowing a seventeen-year-old to stage, film, and show a sex scene and holding him responsible when he does it anyway. THAT'S been my whole point all along.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 16, 2006 6:37:25 PM

"Except that it was the journalist that called him manipulative and you took the bait. Sounds like the journalist was the real manipulator, but since you agree it's all okay, right?"

Point out where in the Oregonian article that the journalist in question called Brandon "manipulative".

Go on. You insist it's there, prove it.

"And by the way, I know Brandon personally, I know the facts of the issue that you are only presuming, and I can tell you that you're wrong without flinching."

Let's see how truthful you are when you find the word "manipulative", or the journalist in question calling Brandon "manipulative". You claim that's a "fact"; demonstrate it.

"I was doing what? Me and mine? Who?"

Go read some of the other threads here. You'll find out eventually.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 16, 2006 6:46:17 PM

Nice try, Craig.

So you're basically saying that the school did punish Brandon, but it didn't punish Brandon, for doing something that was wrong, but which he should have done anyway because to do other was a violation of the "First Amendment".

I don't think it's my reading comprehension that's the problem; I think it's the fact that you're locked in the verbal equivalent of a Twister game.

"The basis on my argument was Brandon's statement on his website, which in light of all the evidence, I find more credible than the lie the school fed to the newspaper, who then repeated it. A lie is still a lie even if it gets published in a newspaper."

That speaks for itself; you're more willing to believe a dishonest seventeen-year-old than a journalist and school officials.

Really pathetic, the length to which "gay activists" like yourself will go to justify their screams of "homophobia".

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 16, 2006 6:49:57 PM

It was indeed the Oregonian journalist who was the manipulater of the facts. It was the journalist who took Brandon's statements about expulsion out of context and made such a thing of this point. Better that he had read Brandon's website and reported the context honestly in relation to what the school administration had said. Anyone who had read Brandon's own words would realize that the Oregonian wasn't being straight.

No surprise here. It's fundamentally the very reason this country is being destroyed -- the media have abdicated their traditional responsibility of fair reporting of the facts.

Posted by: Bugsy | Mar 16, 2006 6:50:04 PM

I'll post where the journalist said "manipulative," when you post where I was involved in those other threads that you accused me of being a part of and offending your honor. Even trade, I think.

And while you're looking that up, look up "insinuation" and "implication" in the dictionary. Just because the journalist didn't say the word doesn't mean the idea wasn't communicated.

Posted by: Michael Scott | Mar 16, 2006 6:50:10 PM

"I'll post where the journalist said "manipulative," when you post where I was involved in those other threads that you accused me of being a part of and offending your honor."

Oh, that's too easy.

Mike posted this above:

"It seems to me that you are disturbingly focused on what 17 years old's sex lives are like."

And you referenced him below.

"But, like Mike said, clearly you're arguing because you have nothing better to do, not because you actually are interested in finding the facts."

Feel free to disavow his statement that I have an unhealthy and sick focus on the sex lives of seventeen-year-olds, but since you haven't already, I daresay you agree with it and consider it "factual".

Now then, where's that quote?

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 16, 2006 6:54:43 PM

Although I don't agree with that part of Mike's statements, that's still irrelevant. I asked you to show me where I said that YESTERDAY.

To remind you, here's what you said:

So show me where I did that. Prove this point. Show me that yesterday, I was screeching about how this proved the school was homophobic. Show me that yesterday, I called you obsessed with the sex lives of seventeen year olds.

Show me that YESTERDAY, or just admit you did the same thing you accuse Brandon of doing: blowing things out of proportion and calling things what they're not.

Posted by: Michael Scott | Mar 16, 2006 7:00:46 PM

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I don't think you are a pervert at all. I guess it was like the insinuation that the "gay community" made the arson threats against the school. But there you go again with the gay community and their nutty activism. We get it- the gay community was wrong for feeling differently thatn you do. We obviously don't know homophobia like you know homophobia, because homophobia is certainly a strictly defined thing.
You know, I've read more than a fair share of your blog and frankly you have the market cornered on insults to anyone that doesn't share your opinions, so I'm surprised at your sensitivity. This is a house that you have built yourself bud.

Posted by: Mike | Mar 16, 2006 7:07:47 PM

Brandon has just released the entirety of the debated "Snuggle Scene" through YouTube. He links it through his site.

Arguing the minutae of words is one thing, but go see it and then decide, no matter what anyone has said, if you think it's a "sex scene" or not.

Posted by: Michael Scott | Mar 16, 2006 7:14:53 PM

[quote]So you're basically saying that the school did punish Brandon, but it didn't punish Brandon, for doing something that was wrong, but which he should have done anyway because to do other was a violation of the "First Amendment".

I don't think it's my reading comprehension that's the problem; I think it's the fact that you're locked in the verbal equivalent of a Twister game.[/quote]

Actually I believe you just showed your reading comprehension is precisely the problem. The school was obviously punishing him for showing the movie to the Marine Biology class, but to deflect the homophobia issue, they did so under the guise of his previous problems. I have previously stated that my position is that if he did violate the rules, he could be punished, but that a punishment that is in essence a backdoor expulsion (whether its called an expulsion, mandatory transfer, or "optional" transfer in which his choice was disregarded by the school) is far outside of being a rational response and most likely illegal. Based on further evidence, namely the story by the journalist you appear to be beatifying if not canonizing, today, I don't believe his asserted insubordination warrants any penalty. According to the article, "[t]he assignment... forbid [sic] sex scenes, nudity and violence." The showing of the movie in the other class was not part of the assignment and presumably, though niether the article or Brandon's account makes this explicit, had the blessing of the teacher if the teacher wasn't the one asking in the first place. He therefore had the permission of the school official to use school equipment to show the movie (if school equipment was used at all), so he shouldn't be punished for that either. The school has no authority to regulate or censor his movie for his own use. Their censorship of it for the English class is questionable as it did not violate the no sex, no nudity rules, but they still asked him to remove the scene. That is fairly moot anyway since he willingly complied with respect to the class assignment showing.

You know ND30, I think this is going to be my last response to you since I really see no point in arguing with a brick wall. If you want to believe that Brandon is a pornographer, smut peddling, lying, manipulative, evil 17 year old, go ahead. The rest of the rational world knows better. Besides, you are killing my buzz from the shirtless (or under your logic nude) Josh Hartnett pictures in addition to getting on my nerves.

Posted by: Craig | Mar 16, 2006 7:26:10 PM

The Oregonian is the only news source that claims this was a hoax. Brandon's site dosn't admit any such claim. Furthermore this morning (3-16-6) it's reported that the school apologized and has allowed Brandon back in class... http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2006/03/student-back-at-school-after-gay-film.html
I don't see how this could be if it were a hoax. I personally am going to take a "wait and see" approach and see if the truth dosn't pop up.

Posted by: Mark | Mar 16, 2006 7:59:15 PM

"So show me where I did that. Prove this point. Show me that yesterday, I was screeching about how this proved the school was homophobic. Show me that yesterday, I called you obsessed with the sex lives of seventeen year olds."

Well, nobody did the last yesterday, which would include you.

And to be honest, I cannot prove you were one of the other posters calling the school homophobic yesterday, so I willingly take that back and apologize for saying that you were.

Fair enough?

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 16, 2006 8:08:38 PM

EGADs!

I can't believe the amount you guys are still reading much less responding to ND30. Read once or twice then, DUMP.

Blogging to such a HUGE extent is TOO DRAINing. Don't worry, it can't last much longer.
~~~

Jacko,

Are you saying you don't have choice?

In what you read?

In what you post?

In how often you do either?
~

Posted by: Gilli | Mar 16, 2006 8:08:57 PM

"We get it- the gay community was wrong for feeling differently thatn you do. We obviously don't know homophobia like you know homophobia, because homophobia is certainly a strictly defined thing."

Well, I don't know about strictly defined, but I can certainly tell you what it's not.

It's not "homophobic" when you review and check with sources other than Brandon.

It's not "homophobic" when a school asks ALL students to remove certain scenes from their assigned movies, not just Brandon -- and especially when the rest of the movie is allowed to be shown.

It's not "homophobic" when a student who is deliberately disobedient and disruptive is punished.

It's not "homophobic" when a student with repeated violations is punished more severely.

Save "homophobic" for important things; don't waste it on defending immature and irresponsible teenagers whose need to show sex scenes in inappropriate places outweighs their common sense.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 16, 2006 8:23:05 PM

"And to be honest, I cannot prove you were one of the other posters calling the school homophobic yesterday, so I willingly take that back and apologize for saying that you were.

Fair enough?"

Yes, fair enough. In the same vein, I retract my statement that the journalist explicitly called him manipulative. I still maintain that saying he lied and is in trouble for it is heavily skewed toward making him seem manipulative, but the word was never said, no.

One more thing -- well, two.

"It's not "homophobic" when a student with repeated violations is punished more severely."

He has no repeated violations. He has no prior violations at all, save for his attendance. I can vouch for this personally. Choose to believe me or not, but my information on this is informed firsthand. You are assuming it.

"Save "homophobic" for important things; don't waste it on defending immature and irresponsible teenagers whose need to show sex scenes in inappropriate places outweighs their common sense."

Again I would like to ask that you go to his website and watch the clip, then decide whether you'd call it a sex scene or not.

Posted by: Michael Scott | Mar 16, 2006 8:38:48 PM

"He has no repeated violations. He has no prior violations at all, save for his attendance."

Um...Michael, the last statement in that ruins the first.

"Again I would like to ask that you go to his website and watch the clip, then decide whether you'd call it a sex scene or not."

Yes. The intent is clearly to portray sex, unless you can show me that boys regularly lay around unclothed in bed kissing and fondling each other for completely nonsexual reasons.

The problem again is that an immature teenager decided to stage and film a sex scene to thrill his classmates, showed it in an inappropriate location, and doesn't want to take responsibility for the fact.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 16, 2006 8:44:33 PM

As a former teacher, and one who has faced up to mistruth and misdirection on the part of school superintendents and school board members, I can certainly identify with Brandon's situation. They have their own agendas, and they'll do whatever they can to discredit anyone who might upset the status quo. It looks like this "kid" is being strong-armed, and the "adults" need to cover their respective asses. No surprise there. And just another example of the media accepting as fact whatever the "officials" hand out. Gee, have we seen that before anywhere? Truthiness reigns.

Posted by: Jeff | Mar 16, 2006 8:55:05 PM

"He has no repeated violations. He has no prior violations at all, save for his attendance.

Um...Michael, the last statement in that ruins the first."

"Prior" and "repeated" are not synonyms. So no, it doesn't.

"Yes. The intent is clearly to portray sex, unless you can show me that boys regularly lay around unclothed in bed kissing and fondling each other for completely nonsexual reasons."

You just proved that you haven't seen the clip at all. There's not a single kiss in the scene. Not. One.

There's a kiss in the scene BEFORE it, but none during the snuggle scene. The kiss, indeed, was not asked to be removed when he showed it in English class.

You're drawing your conclusions based on your imagination, not any actual knowledge. What happened to researching? That's pretty bad form.

There's no kissing. There's also no "fondling". Their hands are on each other, but they aren't moving. I don't call that fondling, that's just physical contact.

And where's the evidence that they're completely unclothed? You only see bare chests. They could have pants on. And yes, I've done that with some friends without having sex with them.

As you insisted so strongly that I show where the journalist said "manipulative", you show me where there's any sex besides what you have projected onto the scene.

Posted by: Michael Scott | Mar 16, 2006 9:05:40 PM

In reading most of the comments and accusations made it comes clear to me that the young mans story has more truth in it than anything from the school administration.

Many years ago I was caught in a situation where the "authorities" version of a happening was accepted as truth while I was labeled the liar. Fortunately nothing worse than my personal reputation was temporarily destroyed. I say temporarily because in the end the truths became known and I was vindicated. Unfortunately nothing was done about those in power who continued to work without being charged with anything for the wrongs they committed.

My reason for stating this is that I forsee the same happening here. This young man is labeled the liar. People who beleived are now against him. Those in power win now and again later when the truth comes out as because by then many will have forgotten or are on to the "latest-in-news" to charge after with the rallying calls.

In short, I beleive the kid.

Posted by: Bear | Mar 16, 2006 9:48:05 PM

I was born in Oregon, went to College at OSU in Corvallis, West Lynn in is the semi-well to do red neck center of an otherwise mostly enlightened Portland Metro Area. West Lynn High is more interested in their football program than they are at promoting diversity. While I suspect that both parties are guilty of stretching the truth in this situation (Brandon's publicity material and statements are a bit too well written and the High School Principal is no less guilty of deception) the bottom line question comes down to this: Is Brandon in School or not? If not, why not? If he is, this story is a hoax.

Posted by: Robert In WeHo | Mar 16, 2006 10:07:47 PM

for Robt in weho;
You stated, "... the bottom line question comes down to this: Is Brandon in School or not? If not, why not? If he is, this story is a hoax." which is partially correct. In no case could this be a "hoax" as it is clearly evident that the school and the student are at differing opinions. The bottom line question should be: Is Brandon in School or not? If not, why not? If he is, Why? This story is not a hoax but rather a question of how correct is the supposed authority. Once that has been clarified then, and only then could anyone place the term of Hoax correctly to the claims of the student.
What I see as evident is that too many people are placing too much on words rather than the meanings behind the words. The 'American" version of the English language leaves too much to be determined through wording as each of us express ourselves in different manners due to many factors. These factors being of but not limited to: location, age, generation, upbringing, social standing, education, etc..
Therefore we need to address the issues at hand with the thoughts of the meanings of what is being said by all sides.
Remember this first, "Politicians lie - thats how the win your votes."

Posted by: Bear | Mar 16, 2006 10:24:16 PM

"You just proved that you haven't seen the clip at all. There's not a single kiss in the scene. Not. One."

Really? Then what IS he doing with his lips?

I've seen the clip, edited though it is, and I'm not as inclined to give him a free pass as you are. Think about that fact.

"There's no kissing. There's also no "fondling". Their hands are on each other, but they aren't moving. I don't call that fondling, that's just physical contact."

Shaking hands is "physical contact". What they're doing is fondling. Call it what you like.

"And where's the evidence that they're completely unclothed? You only see bare chests. They could have pants on. And yes, I've done that with some friends without having sex with them."

Mhm, yeah. Heard that before. "I was just laying in bed playing with him and puckering my lips to kiss him, but there was no SEX involved".

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 16, 2006 10:38:34 PM

You just proved that you haven't seen the clip at all. There's not a single kiss in the scene. Not. One.

Heheheh...and just look at how many times you've called that kid a liar NDF. Jumping to conclusions were we? Well look who isn't bothering with fact finding now...

Posted by: Bruce Garrett | Mar 16, 2006 10:49:10 PM

=What they're doing is fondling.=

If you can't see then below the waste then how do you know they're fondling each other pal? You're trying damn hard to make that scene into something more then it is...and that's something I see a lot of homophobes do.

I posted an essay once on Usenet about my first time with another guy. I wrote of it that "What I'll never forget that day when
I was 17: the moment he put his hands on me. That gentle tentative touch
was electric." Well...the next day, like clockwork, I had a phobe in the newsgroup bellyaching at me that I'd just posted a story about a couple of pervs fondling each other.

It's really interesting how the homophobic mindset just instantly turns even the slightest hint of sexuality into something coarse and crude and graphic when it comes to gay couples. Isn't it.

Posted by: Bruce Garrett | Mar 16, 2006 10:58:06 PM

Happy St. Patrick's Day

Posted by: Patrick | Mar 16, 2006 11:01:24 PM

Unfortunately, Bruce, there is a rather significant difference between merely touching someone else, as you describe, and what you see in that scene -- little things like lack of clothing, bed, lights down, hands and lips moving, etc. You could have been describing a handshake; this was most emphatically meant to convey and portray sex.

Obviously the homophobe who blasted you on Usenet was wrong. However, this isn't even comparable to that short snippet, unless the next thing you posted was how you shucked your clothes, jumped into bed, and started feeling each other up. Moreover, you weren't posting it in a public school classroom, especially not one where you'd been ordered not to and were disobeying.

In short, time and place for everything. But maybe you ought to think about how much ammunition you give the homophobes when you start demanding that this sort of thing be shown in a public school classroom.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 16, 2006 11:12:58 PM

Yeah.

Here's to green beer and fake Guiness tattooes.
~

Posted by: Gilli | Mar 16, 2006 11:15:22 PM

Here's to remembering to wear something green tomorrow. :)

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 16, 2006 11:24:15 PM

Now, let me begin by saying that I am all for a gay man who does not allow himself to think like all other gay men do; that’s wonderful. Mr. ND30, I assume, and I think correctly, that you are one of those gay men who will go on for hours about how he is so much more than a gay man and that there is so much more to life than being gay. Great. You seem to be someone who has more in common with other types of people than you do with most gay men. So why post so often on a gay blog? Are you on a mission? Could we see the statement?
You will have to forgive my slightly psychoanalytic take on things, but the tone of most of your posts in no way reaches out to other gay men in anything close to a caring or conciliatory manner. I do not believe that you are a gay Nazi or any such nonsense, but if you have any desire to connect with other gay men, you are going about it in a rather odd way. I am sure you will counter with “I have many gay friends” and I am sure you do, but they are most likely all of the same mindset when it comes to the gay community at large (they hate gay pride parades, drag queens, etc.). If this is true (and correct me if I’m wrong, gently, please), why are you such a frequent poster on a gay community blog where most people will disagree with you?
Is it because when push comes to shove perhaps one (small?) part of you might actually like gay men?
There are many things wrong with people, gay people included. But I have to say that, in my singular opinion, your methods of trying to “open our eyes” to how gullible, immature, and ridiculous we may be are probably not going to work. What you write is for the most part hostile, belligerent, and inflammatory. At first I thought you just like to argue, but now I am beginning to think that you are just a sad person. You need a hug.

Posted by: jmg | Mar 16, 2006 11:25:50 PM

I am one of Brandon's personal friends and have known him well for a number of years now. I also helped work on the very project in question. I am here not to argue whether or not what was portrayed in the film was appropriate school material, whether or not the attendance problems should be taken into account, or even whether or not he should have been "transferred" in the first place. Obviously, being a friend of his my opinions are rather biased. I simply wanted to state the indisputable fact that Brandon has been removed from West Linn High School. He has not been to our school since the day the film was last shown and he was told that he was being transferred to CCC. I can let you know firsthand that he had absolutley no say in whether or not he would be allowed to attend West Linn High School any longer. As of now he will have a meeting with district officials next week, however I just wanted to clear up for those who did not have all of the information that that he was removed from school not one hour after the movie played, and has not returned since. I have spoken with his parents, as well as many of the students at our school and other members of our community and the opinions are unanimous that his transfer was forced, as well as due to this film. Thank you.

Posted by: Zack Edmondson - West Linn | Mar 17, 2006 12:00:08 AM

=Unfortunately, Bruce, there is a rather significant difference between merely touching someone else, as you describe, and what you see in that scene...=

I've watched that scene about a half dozen times now and there is almost as much screen time of physical contact between the characters in the parking lot scene proceeding it then between them in the sack. There is no kiss (although I'm not sure how a kiss counts as having sex but I guess if your mindset is that homosexuals don't love they just have sex then...yeah...a gay couple is having sex, even when they're just kissing each other...). One character rests his head against the shoulder of the other and has his hand on that character's chest and he gently and ever so slightly moves his hand against it and you're calling that Fondling and I'm sorry but that's disgusting.

And I don't think you're being cynically dishonest about that scene. Assuming you actually viewed the clip I think you really saw fondling going on. You saw two male teens in the sack together...Touching. You saw what the film maker intended you to see...an intimate bond between them. And it struck you as though something crude and graphic and coarse had just been waved in your face and there's a reason for that.

I'll allow that maybe you still haven't looked at it at all. But I really think you have, and your knee jerk reaction to those few seconds of simple intimate affection between two gay teens is telling.

It certainly explains why you've been relentlessly spitting on the kid who filmed it in here.

Posted by: Bruce Garrett | Mar 17, 2006 12:02:10 AM

Well, a hug never hurts anyone, JMG. :)

Actually, I think you would be surprised by the diversity of people I am blessed to call my friends, drag queens, Democrats, and all, online and offline.

The point of posting is not to avoid disagreement, JMG; if I'd wanted to do that, I could have converted to a more "gay-acceptable" way of thinking a long time ago. But that's not who I am, what I believe, or what I think is important.

If you detect a tone of frustration in my voice, you're absolutely right. I'm sick of being told what I am, what I should do, and what I should believe. If I'd wanted that form of totalitarianism and social control of my actions, I could have become a religious rightwinger and at least had a greater modicum of social acceptance.

Do I like gay men? Absolutely. But do I like some of the things we do? Absolutely not.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 17, 2006 12:14:49 AM

"And I don't think you're being cynically dishonest about that scene. Assuming you actually viewed the clip I think you really saw fondling going on. You saw two male teens in the sack together...Touching. You saw what the film maker intended you to see...an intimate bond between them. And it struck you as though something crude and graphic and coarse had just been waved in your face and there's a reason for that.

Problem is, Bruce....they're not gay.

They're actors faking being gay.

This child is taking something very deep, vital, and intimate and making a mockery of it.

Why? Because he wants to impress his school classmates by being "edgy" and by being rebellious. He wants to be an ass to his teachers and school administration and he's using gay sex as a convenient way to do it, banking that cries of "homophobia" will keep him from having to take responsibility for his actions.

I value the "intimate bond" that exists between two men who love each other too much to see this immature child use it in that fashion.

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 17, 2006 12:25:29 AM

So, I wonder what has really happen...

Did Flyte do this for an artistic reason?
Is Flyte just a manipulative kid?
Is the school homophobic?
Did the school lie to to cut off Flyte's support?
Was Andy quick to change sides?
Will we ever find out?? x-p

Posted by: Scott A | Mar 17, 2006 1:06:05 AM

"You just proved that you haven't seen the clip at all. There's not a single kiss in the scene. Not. One."

Really? Then what IS he doing with his lips?

Um...Talking? People still do that in real life you know, we don't all need keyboards to express ourselves to each other.

"You could have been describing a handshake; this was most emphatically meant to convey and portray sex."

Prove it.

Posted by: Michael Scott | Mar 17, 2006 1:08:36 AM

ND30: "I value the "intimate bond" that exists between two men who love each other too much to see this immature child use it in that fashion."

How very Harlequin Romance of you. Do all gay couples share the same kind of "intimate bond"? I'm really curious because we hetero couples have all sorts of complex relationships. Are you restricted to only one kind? Is it dramatically different than what hetero couples experience? Are gays & straights THAT different?

I'm just writing this to point out that you're not doing the gay community any favors with your self-righteous indignation and sloppy rhetoric.

Posted by: hetero troll | Mar 17, 2006 2:36:36 AM

Wow, after all that... Geeze!

And to the guy who wrote:
"if i were to father/adopt a kid there is little doubt that he would pull something like this. and then i'd have to explain to him why attention-gettting stunts are bad. and then, he'd brush his over-long bangs out of his tear-swollen eyes, turn and look in my face. "i learned by ... by watching you. [sob]"

aaaaaaaaaaaaaand scene."

Thank you. That was the funniest thing I've heard all day :D

Posted by: Paul | Mar 17, 2006 3:40:56 AM

Long experience with bigots who get caught is that they universally lie, deny and smear their opponents. (See the history of the present Republican Administration.) Towleroad has unsuccessfully tried to contact the school board in this case. No comment from them. I'm inclined to believe Brandon Flyte. Innocent till proven guilty.

Posted by: Val | Mar 17, 2006 4:57:02 AM

(Problem is, Bruce....they're not gay.

They're actors faking being gay.)

Hey...genius...so were the leads in Brokeback Mountain.

No...that film isn't edgy...at least not the clips I've seen of it so far. It is sweet. Derivative...but sweet. And no, I don't think you value the intimate bond between same sex lovers at all, or you wouldn't have described that scene in the crude terms you did. The shots of the two of them in the sack are very brief, and intermixed with shots of a candle flame. It serves its purpose, to establish the nature of the bond between the two characters, but it's nearly nothing at all in terms of action and screen time. And yet it really grossed you out didn't it?

And that's the rotten core of the problem here...not merely with the likes of you, but more importantly with what that school to that kid. There's a reason you're taking the side of the school admins here and it's because you both had the same gut level reactions of disgust when you saw that scene. Birds of a feather and all that.

Ammunition to the homophobes you say? I'm laughing in your face.

Posted by: Bruce Garrett | Mar 17, 2006 9:31:22 AM

Doesn't anyone remember high school? Obviously, none of us really knows what happened here, but this absolutely reeks of a high school administration trying to cover its ass. Not elaborating on past transgressions? Sounds like they don't exist. I'd put the brakes on before declaring this a hoax.

Posted by: Adam | Mar 17, 2006 12:25:32 PM

"How very Harlequin Romance of you. Do all gay couples share the same kind of "intimate bond"? I'm really curious because we hetero couples have all sorts of complex relationships. Are you restricted to only one kind? Is it dramatically different than what hetero couples experience? Are gays & straights THAT different?"

Believe it or not, yes, I find that gays tend to value their intimate relationships and sex more than do straight couples.

Maybe if heteros had to deal with the consequences of their sexual decisions by watching people, especially those they loved, die around them, they would treat sex with greater respect and value their loves more highly.

But, like most hets, this child subscribes to the stereotype that gays are only about the sex; indeed, he insists that without the sex scene, the film "doesn't work". Then he demands that we gays back him up and allow him to disobey his teachers and break the rules repeatedly to show sex scenes in public schools, all in the name of "gay rights".

Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | Mar 17, 2006 12:29:54 PM

"But, like mo

Current Affairs | Film & TV

Brokeback High Expulsion a Hoax, Kid Now in Real Mess

Comments