On a local Christian radio station here in Northern Virginia, a couple of the afternoon hosts play a game called “Bible or Not.” They have three short phrases that sound kind of wise or religious, and a listener calls in and tries to determine whether they’re from the Bible or from somewhere else.
Let’s play a similar game. I’ll tell you a true story, and you guess whether it’s from Soviet Russia, Communist China, or present-day America. The story itself is true; you’re just trying to guess where it took place.
Ready? Here we go.
A school in the country was adopting a controversial policy that upset many parents. Many of the parents feared the policy would allow students to be physically harmed, and protested the change. The people in charge wanted the policy anyway, though, and it was enacted despite the parents’ concerns.
The parents ended up being right. One student took advantage of the policy and committed a crime against another student. Not just a little crime, a particularly heinous, “put you away for a long time” crime.
The crime was largely kept quiet. The next time the school board had a public meeting, the victim’s father showed up, hoping to shine a light on how the policy change had enabled the crime. Someone at the meeting asked if there had been any problems related to the policy change. The school board leaders said “not to my knowledge.” Enraged, the father relayed what happened to his child. Another attendee at the meeting informed the father that she did not believe the child’s claims, going so far as to insult the child’s mental capacity.
At that point the argument heated up, and law enforcement tried to escort the man out of the meeting where he could calm down. Wanting to stay and shed more light on the crime, things quickly escalated from a heated argument to several officers restraining the father and putting him in handcuffs.
He was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, and found guilty of both charges. The court sentenced him to 10 days in jail, all of which was suspended, contingent on one year of good behavior. The top prosecutor involved in the case then pursued a fine and anger management training for the man. This seems excessive for a man that simply wanted to share how a controversial policy brought physical and emotional harm to his child.
This man’s name is Scott Smith. He lives in Loudon County, Virginia, where the public school system allows students to use whatever restroom they’d like. He alleges that his daughter was sexually assaulted in the girls’ bathroom by a boy wearing a skirt. The nature of the allegations is extremely graphic and violent. The school system apparently tried to cover up an incident where a girl was beaten and raped in a public school. At the very least, school administrators claimed no knowledge of it, suggesting incompetence of the highest degree. I don’t really blame the cops for arresting him (they never know the back story, they only see what’s happening in front of them), but it’s unsettling that a pro-leniency prosecutor chose this incident to make an example out of, apparently trying to silence someone to help preserve a controversial agenda.
The daughter’s assailant was moved to a different school, and has allegedly assaulted a second victim.
And now, Scott Smith is near the top of someone’s list of domestic terrorists. Citing the case of Scott Smith, among others, the National School Boards Association has requested help from the U.S. Department of Justice to prosecute parents that get rowdy at school board meetings while protesting controversial items.
Your right to free speech doesn’t disappear overnight. It’s taken away little bits at a time. Elections matter. If there isn’t a good candidate in your local race, maybe you should throw your hat in the ring.
