Student Suspended Over IM Icon

Chris Reimer writes "C|Net News.com is reporting that a 15-year-old student lost a lawsuit over having an instant messenger icon that represented a death threat against an English teacher on his personal computer that another student reported to school authorities. From the article: 'His parents sued, claiming that the icon was protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, that the school district failed to train staff in proper threat assessment and that the school board violated state law in not following proper procedures. [The judge] Mordue rejected the free-speech claims.'"

Comments

what did he expect?

[conJunk]

from the court's opinion in tfa:

"Likewise, the surrounding circumstances--including the effect of the icon on Mr. VanderMolen and school officials, Aaron's awareness of the school's position that a threat was not a joke, the absence of any factor to suggest that the icon was a joke and the general increase in school violence--establish that an ordinary, reasonable recipient who is familiar with the context of the icon would interpret it as a serious threat of injury.

that's the only part of the decision i disagree with. an IM icon isn't a threat, it's an icon. "The absence of any factor to indicate the icon was a joke"? Um. How about that it's an icon, as opposed to say a note, or graffiti, or some other type of message?

that minor disagreement asside, by 15 a kid should know he can't make a picture of a gun pointed at a teacher's head, have blood splatter everywhere, write "kill teacher $name" and think nothing is going to happen.

I was in second grade when i learned you can get in trouble for drawing pictures of people you don't like lying in a hospital bed.

did the school over react by suspending him for a semster? probably. but good grief. you don't make icons of blowing a teacher's brains out and think that's totally cool.

Re:what did he expect?

[alshithead]

If the text of the icon said something about the president instead of "Kill Mr. VanderMolen", I think the Secret Service would consider it a threat until it was investigated. Without investigation there is no way to tell if it is a threat. Public schools have policies that restrict the constitutional rights of students and they can therefore punish students where an adult citizen might only be investigated.

Re:what did he expect?

[ackthpt]

that's the only part of the decision i disagree with. an IM icon isn't a threat, it's an icon.

This isn't the 1950's and the Cleaver's we're discussing here. There are in the past 20 years several accounts of perfectly normal children appearing at school one day to settle a few scores. Nobody sees these things coming, particularly parents. Parents who don't check up on who their children hang out with, don't engage in conversations to see how their day went, but are always shocked when they get a call from the police.

I worked in San Jose a few years ago and some joker took some pictures of himself with a bunch of guns and ammo and dropped them off at the local drug store for processing. An alert employee thought there was something wrong and reported the photos to the police. The guy had been driving past my office every day for months. Guns, explosives, pipe bombs, etc. Plans to kill people at his community college were found in his home. Free speech? Sometimes people have to take an interest. I'm seriously bugged Aaron's parents are defending this.

Re:what did he expect?

[posterlogo]

did the school over react by suspending him for a semster? probably. but good grief. you don't make icons of blowing a teacher's brains out and think that's totally cool.

Well, it all comes down to the definition of what is or isn't a threat, what is or isn't acceptable. Where to draw the line? I'm willing to be that although laws specifically haven't changed, this sort of icon pre-Columbine probably wouldn't have resulted in suspension. So what has changed? The bar has changed. The problem is that the bar wasn't well defined in law, or even school rules. Is the IM icon OK if he doesn't use it to communicate with any other students or teachers, and doesn't use it at school? Is it OK if he just drew it at home, never brought it to school, never communicated its existence, yet someone found it anyway and reported him? Basically, are the administrators punishing only what they can see, what they know about? And what constitutes a threat? If I'm a pissed off student after getting detention or something and I'm grumbling to myself and mumbling under my breath that I wish the teacher would just be taken out back and shot, and someone heard me? How about if I mumbled that I wish the teacher would just jump off a cliff? How about if I mumbled I wish the teached would just get abducted by aliens and blasted to oblivion with a ray gun? Clearly, not a credible threat, merely because we haven't seen it happen yet, really. The problem is that speech is infinitely variable... we do our best and we can only say we're going to protect free speech or we're not. Then we have to clarify that and say free speech is only free as long as it per se does not represent a danger (like yelling fire in a crowded theater), etc. I really don't know where to draw the line, but it certainly seems the pendulum has swung in the direction of treating all students as potential Columbinites.

Re:what did he expect?

[Alien Being]

FTA:

"As a result, the school district sent Aaron's parents a notice of a formal disciplinary hearing and also tipped off the sheriff's department (which declined to do anything, concluding that the icon was indeed a joke). Meanwhile, a psychologist concluded that Aaron did not pose a threat."

Re:what did he expect?

[Sabaki]

that's the only part of the decision i disagree with. an IM icon isn't a threat, it's an icon

What's so special about icons that they should be treated differently from any other form of image or text, other than the fact that you're directly identifying yourself with it, which would seem to strengthen any identification of the icon's message with the person behind it.

Re:what did he expect?

[voice_of_all_reason]

Ends never justify means.

Re:what did he expect?

[LunaticTippy]

I'm pretty uncomfortable with this. People should be held accountable for what they do. Getting in trouble for talking about doing it is creepy.

If we criminalize planning to commit a crime, the next step will be thinking about a crime. Or being the kind of person that might think about committing a crime.

I think if someone fantasizes about killing people that should be legal. If they write down these fantasies that should be legal. If they carry them out, or start actually threatening people it is time to involve law enforcement.

I'd much rather have a miniscule chance of getting shot by a nutjob than a more miniscule chance in a fascist police state.

Re:what did he expect?

[Pearson]

an IM icon isn't a threat, it's an icon. "The absence of any factor to indicate the icon was a joke"? Um. How about that it's an icon, as opposed to say a note, or graffiti, or some other type of message?

This doesn't make sense. A note is more capable of being a threat than an icon? The icon included a sentence of text, plus a series of pictures to illustrate the text. It is even more explicit than a simple note would have been. And graffiti? Making the pictures and letters bigger and spraying them on a building somehow lends them more credibility? How many times have we heard "size doesn't matter"?

It is the message that is important, not the medium it is delivered in, and in this case the message was pretty clear.

Re:what did he expect?

[packeteer]

Your taking the wrong arguement for the right cause. I think in the end you and me both agree but your slippery slope arguement is jsut wrong. I know you really want to draw a parallel between 1984 and this crime but there is not much to work with.

Planning a crime IS a crime. Discussing a crime IS a crime. Thinking about a crime is NOT a crime.

These are some important distinctions. You seem to make the claim that if someone is PLANNING a school shooting but has not done it yet there is nothing wrong. I think most reasonable people including yourself can agree that this is wrong. If someone is only fantasizing about a crime or considering a crime then its wrong but not ILLEGAL and the parents/school are right to step in but not with punishment.

Re:what did he expect?

[Overly Critical Guy]

an IM icon isn't a threat, it's an icon.

I'm not sure I understand how it being an icon negates it being a threat. An icon is "a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol of something."

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

that's the only part of the decision i disagree with. an IM icon isn't a threat, it's an icon. "The absence of any factor to indicate the icon was a joke"? Um. How about that it's an icon, as opposed to say a note, or graffiti, or some other type of message?

Whole heartedly disagree. The icon even included text to make it even more clear. The messages embodiment as an icon has no relevance to the message it was trying to convey. How does graffiti make a message more likely to be a threat? Most grafitti is to identify or mark, not to threaten. The overwhelming majority of "notes" are not threatening, so why would it typed in an email or sent as a text attachment make it any more threatening than an icon. It could even be argued that it is more threatening as an icon:

- people tend to react more strongly to visual stimulae, the threat as a picture vs words can be seen as being an stronger indicator

- creating an icon takes more time than simply typing some text. This shows that the person felt strong enough about what they were doing to go through the trouble to make it.

- the icon showed the gun fired, not just simply a gun pointed to the head showing intent to act, not just to threaten.

If the icon had a man raping a 2yo girl, would the fact that it's an icon make it seem more of a joke just from the fact that it's an icon?

Re:what did he expect?

[loraksus]

If we criminalize planning to commit a crime,

You seem to be unaware of the "conspiracy to commit..." series of crimes, which can actually be quite draconian.

If you and your friend are drinking one night and say something like, "Yo, we need to pop a cap in Mr. X's ass." and one of you goes out and purchases a deer rifle - an overzealous DA can press charges and you'll probably be convicted by the average jury .... even if the conversation wasn't serious and you bought the rifle for a deer hunt.

Re:what did he expect?

[kimvette]

Discussing crime or discussing as an academic exercise (mental masturbation, story development, or whatever) discussing how one could potentially knock over a gas station or bank is NOT a crime.

Actually conspiring to do so - that is, making real plans to actually carry it out, IS. Oh, and saying "I'm going to rob a bank tomorrow" in jest is not a crime. Sorry.

Otherwise, Tom Clancy and Jack Higgins should both be jailed for terrorism, among many, many other authors. Also, there are many movie producers, screenplay writers, and actors who ought to be in jail for portraying illegal activities.

This has been the duh statement of the year here, but obviously there are some people on here who need this kind of thing explained.

Re:what did he expect?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> general increase in school violence

Is there? Or is this a construction of the media?

Re:what did he expect?

[hazem]

Public schools have policies that restrict the constitutional rights of students and they can therefore punish students where an adult citizen might only be investigated.

I believe that concept is called in loco parentis. It means "in place of the parent" - that the school acts in the place of the parent while the child is at school. The problem is, it should only apply when the kids "in loco" the school. The kid at home should be free to say what he wants or put whatever he wants on his IM.

It's still a dumb thing to do.

Re:what did he expect?

[MrR0p3r]

If I come to your house, steal something, and you don't notice it for a year, am I guilty of theft?

A crime is a crime, getting caught isn't the determining factor.

Re:what did he expect?

[EtherealStrife]

I'm planning on becoming a billionaire. I have the perfect plan, that involves selling teacups made out of toenail clippings.

So uh...where's my money?

Re:what did he expect?

[JazzLad]

I graduated long enough ago that IM did not exist in [my] school (12 years ago) and I was an art major (read=all of my electives were art classes & I took art instead of studyhall - equiv to almost a whole year of just art) so I got away with a bit in the name of creativity, however I would have goten into trouble over something like this. Hard to say if suspended as the medium didn't really exist then, but we had a /very/ low tolerance for expressed violence in jest or otherwise.

Might notta been the norm, but was definately pre-Columbine.

Disclaimer: One of the following would have to have applied:
1) on school grounds
2) at, to, or in reference to* another student or staff
    *somewhere public enough for the school to find out without searching my room :)

-
karma=bad
I care=no

Re:what did he expect?

[MichaelSmith]

an IM icon isn't a threat, it's an icon

My garmin GPS lets me assign symbols (boat, shop, phone, etc) to waypoints. The symbol for my workplace is a skull and crossbones. Better not let my boss find out.

Re:what did he expect?

[SuprCzr]

I disagree...

Just because ends do not solely justify means, does not mean that ends should not be a consideration, nor that ends cannot help to justify means.

That said, I do believe that narrowminded simplifications do not justify overrated posts.

Re:what did he expect?

[cptgrudge]

I really don't know where to draw the line, but it certainly seems the pendulum has swung in the direction of treating all students as potential Columbinites.

I expect it has something to do with liability, either real or imagined. What if this kid did do something later on, and the school knew about this and took no action? I'm not saying that the disciplinary action that they took matches his inappropriate behavior, but it's possible that they would be opening themselves up to a lawsuit if this kid did hurt someone and the school had done nothing. Thank our litigious society for that.

In the end, the bad PR from punishing this kid harshly would be less than "The school knew, and they did NOTHING!" Although I'd think that they could have been a bit lighter on the kid and still accomplished their goal of CYA.

Re:what did he expect?

[posterlogo]

Ya, although that's kind of my point. Stealing is a crime, whether it is publically known or not. When considering threats, it absolutely does matter whether the person you intend to threaten does or can know about it. So yes, a crime is a crime, except when it is not a crime. It is not a crime for some kid to think about blowing a teachers head off with a gun. It is not a crime for him/her to write it in a private diary. It is a crime to make it public. So a public threat is a crime. Thought about anything is not a crime. In this particular case, him making the icon public constitutes an expressed threat, so it should be dealt with. Making a sketch at home of the same picture that is on the icon and pasting it under his pillow is not an expressed threat. So ya, getting caught is not the determining factor, but a threat per seis only a crime if it is expressed. Your analogy is flawed.

Re:what did he expect?

[ScrewMaster]

I really don't know where to draw the line, but it certainly seems the pendulum has swung in the direction of treating all students as potential Columbinites.

Yes, it does seem that way ... Administrators should realize that while the Columbine students took out their anger at (mostly) fellow students, other individuals with similar feelings may very well target members of said school administration. If the problem of student violence as really as grave as "they" would have us believe, they should also realize that by mistreating students who may already have a problem they are simply painting bullseyes upon their own backs, and are certainly not helping matters. That this kid drew a violent icon (geez, an icon, people) is perhaps less important as the thoughts and feelings that motivated it. Hell, some of the animations I came up with in class (usually in the margins of one of my school books) would probably have gotten me shot on the spot nowadays, if a single IM icon is considered so terrible. I drew one where a car zoomed along the margin, took the corner at high speed, and then ran over the teacher. Splat! You know, it's just great that the school administrators can go home each night and feel good about having saved the world once again, but I'd venture to guess that they've done this student more damage than a few hundred pixels were worth. Expulsion over an icon ... what's next, electroconvulsive therapy for picking one's nose?

Re:what did he expect?

[Dun Malg]

If you and your friend are drinking one night and say something like, "Yo, we need to pop a cap in Mr. X's ass." and one of you goes out and purchases a deer rifle - an overzealous DA can press charges and you'll probably be convicted by the average jury .... even if the conversation wasn't serious and you bought the rifle for a deer hunt.

What are you talking about? Based on a single drunken comment and an otherwise unrelated firearm purchase, you probably won't be convicted. DA's don't just randomly press charges like that.

Re:what did he expect?

[voice_of_all_reason]

Likewise, I agree with you. Perhaps my comment should have read "Ends do not justify means in and of themself" -- which is what the grandfather poster appeared to suggest.

And narrowminded simplifications may not justify being overrated (either on intraweb arguements or in the political theatre), but they certainly help get the point across.

Re:what did he expect?

[aafiske]

Well... I don't know if you're entirely right there. True, fantasizing about violence, talking about it with therapist, friends, etc, dealing with it, these shouldn't be illegal. But publicly displaying artwork expressing explicit deadly violence against someone... how is that not a threat? If I paint a picture of you, dead, stabbed 100 times and write 'kill LunaticTippy'! and post it around on walls for people to see, is that okay? Seems pretty obviously not.

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

by 15 a kid should know he can't make a picture of a gun pointed at a teacher's head, have blood splatter everywhere, write "kill teacher $name" and think nothing is going to happen.

Why not? I'm pretty sure I drew some pretty violent things in my exercise books when I was at school. Gun battles and suchlike. I seem to recall thinking it was cool. I don't think I was ever punished for it. I'm sure I'd remember if I had been.

Really, what's all the fuss about? It's what teenaged boys do. Pretty much everyone goes through a punk phase or a goth phase or a death-metal phase. It's not like more than one in a million ever actually does anything violent. You might as well start arresting every man you catch drinking, because one in a million is going to go home and beat his wife.

Of course, I have the advantage of living in a country where paranoia is not the norm, and where most kids have trouble getting their hands on knives, let alone guns -- hell, most adults wouldn't know how to get their hands on a gun. Even the police don't carry them. So maybe it's a bit easier for teachers over here to be calm and rational.

I guess it's too late for the USA. You can't get out of the stupid situation you're in, because if anyone so much as suggests that you might like to start locking all those weapons up before someone gets hurt, half America goes completely apeshit. Apparently because they're afraid they might not have enough time to unlock their gun cupboard next time the British invade or something... I never did quite follow the second-amendment argument.

Re:what did he expect?

[databank]

From a legal perspective, the implied "threat" is that his real last name was in the icon image, hence the message is "directed" at a specific person and places that person at risk. Since there were no contra-indications that it was anything less then a "threat" at that point, then the person whose name is there would most certaily feel threatened. Had the student instead added at the bottom "SIKE!" then the original threat implication would have been nullified as the entire message intent has changed.

Could the victim have reacted differently? Sure, but that often depends on his relationship with the student in question. Had he been more familiar with the student's behavior and knew he truly didn't mean any bodily harm then he might not have taken it as seriously.

Re:what did he expect?

[Sancho]

The reason it's a "slippery slope" is because prosecutors start pushing the law ever so slightly and get convictions until the act that is being punished has changed drastically from the intent of the lawmakers.

Either that, or the lawmakers themselves make small changes in the laws which, over time, add up to something utterly absurd.

Right now, with the current laws, legal system, and judicial rulings, it's inconceivable that someone would be convicted for thinking about committing a crime. That doesn't mean that in a few years time, such convictions will not happen.

Re:what did he expect?

[kimvette]

I guess those flash games where you shoot or punch or kick George W. Bush are threats as well, too. ;)

Re:what did he expect?

[Monkelectric]

Prozac. You'll find that *ALMOST* all of the kids who do this stuff are on Prozac / Luvox or other SSRI's (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors).

In studies, 4% of children taking Luvox developed Mania, and about 6% in Prozac. The real question here is *HOW* did these drugs get approved.

Re:what did he expect?

[Al Dimond]

What you mean is that ends can be a consideration in judging means after the situation has already ended, right? You can only see the end after the dust has cleared.

What's really important isn't judging the actions of the past, but making decisions in the future. To that end, of course, you'll judge actions of the past, but in a different way: you'll look at the similar situations that have occurred, what results have arisen from different actions taken at those junctures, and make judgements on the desirability of those results. When making decisions you can't look at the ends, you can only try to get a clear picture of the potential ends. A decision that leads to success isn't always a good one, and a decision that leads to failure isn't always a bad one.

Re:what did he expect?

[pilgrim23]

GASP! a kid (and the local cops) recognize the difference between a icon as a stress relief on his computer from a delivered threat in the real world? and without a focus group? without a planning session? without a proper briefing on social, cultural, gender, life style, and species cohabitation issues that may be raised during proceedings? GET THAT KID ON MEDS NOW!

Re:what did he expect?

[brian0918]

"Free speech?"

Yes. Read up on it. You can always find abuses that came about because of any right or freedom, but those individuals are a small fraction of the total population. Making wide-sweeping changes to laws because of Columbine is like a philanthropist giving all his money to cure a disease that affects 0.00001% of the population, simply because he saw a dramatic made-for-TV movie about someone with the disease.

"An alert employee thought there was something wrong and reported the photos to the police."

Quite the responsible Citizen he was. You too can make the country a safer place by giving up your freedoms and the freedoms of others to save your own asses. Because there's nothing better than the squirt of dopamine you get for doing the Right Thing®.

Re:what did he expect?

[Sancho]

Yes, speech is variable. I often talk online with /college/students/ who don't seem to be able to form complete sentences and whose meaning is vague. Maybe this kid meant, "I'm going to kill $name" but due to space considerations, laziness, or any of the other reasons that people abbreviate on the Internet, it came out as "Kill $name" instead.

Re:what did he expect?

[krusadr]

"Planning a crime IS a crime. Discussing a crime IS a crime. Thinking about a crime is NOT a crime."

Thought-crime. 1984 by George Orwell. The way things are going with the so-called "anti-terrorism" errosions of freedoms in the west it might not too far away. I wonder when the first trial will convict someone of thinking about a crime as a major component of planning it. After all a crime committed by a solitary individual would have been planned by thought rather than discussion and so it is not too much of a stretch to see evidence of a person having thought about committing a crime as planning one.

Re:what did he expect?

[Haeleth]

It is the message that is important, not the medium it is delivered in, and in this case the message was pretty clear.

Well... no, apparently the message wasn't clear at all. See, if the message had been clear, then there wouldn't be a whole bunch of people sitting here right now arguing over whether it was a joke or not, would there?

(Note that while this judge concluded that there was nothing to suggest it was a joke, the local sheriff's office declined to act because they thought it was pretty obvious that it was a joke. So, yes, there is actually some disagreement among professional law enforcement people whose job it is to work out when a threat is a joke. This is not typically a characteristic of "clear" messages.)

Re:what did he expect?

[Sancho]

There's nothing special about them. But should text that says "Kill $name" or a picture with the caption "Kill $name" be considered a threat?

Apparently it should.

Re:what did he expect?

[pilgrim23]

Rememeber Kip Kinkle? check his scrips. You are absolutely right.

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe it was the founding father who said it is better to have a guilty man be free than an innocent man be jailed.

You also contradict yourself, the icon itself was harmless. It may indicate a problem but having the icon is actually a GOOD thing. Guess what, those crazy kids won't go away because they can't show an icon anymore. Instead they'll now be HARDER to find and treat as they will know to hide such things. This isn't following a lead to stop a threat; this is following a lead, finding there is no threat and then punishing the person anyway.

In other words you want the illusion of security at the cost of actual security, f***er.

Re:what did he expect?

[DougLorenz]

A problem with this line of reasoning is that we aren't talking about whether or not the kid committed a crime. The police decided that he did not, and chose not to arrest him for any crime.

However, what the kid did was a violation of school policy, and for that he was suspended, which is a valid punishment under the school policy.

This has nothing to do with prosecution of thought crimes or anything of that nature. There are certain things that you are not allowed to do in certain circumstances, even though those actions may be legal. Criminal law is not the only collection of rules that a person must follow.

Re:what did he expect?

[Dun Malg]

I'm not sure I understand how it being an icon negates it being a threat. An icon is "a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol of something."

An IM icon gets transmitted to anyone and everyone you IM with. This is why comparisons to planning/conspiracy to commit are ridiculous. If you truly intended to kill someone, why the fuck would you broadcast it to all your friends as an IM icon? Even if you only intended it as a threat, how is that accomplished by only sending the picture to your friends as an IM icon? It's a lame joke by a dumbass kid. That's what dumbass kids do. Even the sheriff's department looked at it and said it was clearly not a threat. The law is meant to include a healthy portion of common sense. Instead of common sense, however, schools use "zero tolerance". Zero tolerance is a crap policy for chickenshit bureaucrats afraid of the slightest liability.

Re:what did he expect?

[DougLorenz]

Prozac. You'll find that *ALMOST* all of the kids who do this stuff are on Prozac

This talking point brought to you by the Church of Scientology. Just trust in Scientology alone to maintain your sanity, look at everything it has done for Tom Cruise...

Re:what did he expect?

[TubeSteak]

But... the teacher (aka "the victim") felt threatened.

That's enough for the school to act.

From TFA:
It is well-established that lack of intention or ability to carry out a threat is not relevant.

Basically, the Judge is saying the Police could have arrested the kid & that it was a prosecutable offense.

Based on the Judge's conclusions, IMO, Mr. VanderMolen could have sued in civil court for distress & won.

What I don't get is why news.com.com is running a story from 2001. Was this case just decided recently?

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Morality is far more complex than a one-liner, and to reduce it to one is deeply offensive. There are no hard and fast rules. If an armed man breaks into your house and attempts to kill your family, most people would say you're perfectly justified to kill him. So we clearly use the ends - saving your family - to justify the means - murder. Really, the only point of contention in a scenario like this is how hard you should try for a non-lethal solution. Even then, if someone actually points a weapon (or even something which you just think is a weapon!) at your family, most people would gladly justify the assailant's murder with no further explanation required.

There is a fuzzy line somewhere in there, where some crimes cannot be justified or some ends are not worth the price to reach. "The ends don't justify the means" is a very good rule of thumb, but don't make the mistake of thinking it TRVTH. It's a practical admission that humans are generally poor prognosticators and that, most of the time, you're better served doing the right thing today than hoping for the right thing to happen later.

Sorry for the rant, but I take issue with people who use pithy quotes in lieu of argument or reasoning. You clearly feel the ends don't justify the means here; how about explaining why? I think it's especially important because most people - outside of Slashdot, anyway, and maybe here too - seem to disagree.

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the issue in this kid's case is that Mr. X took it seriously. Check out this site:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508230007 - a radio host jokingly said that he wants to kill Michael Moore - perhaps Mr. Moore should have pressed charges!

Re:what did he expect?

[ottothecow]

I think it would be the other way around...I am sure tons have kids have made kill bush icons (for gods sake there are flash advertisments out there where you are supposted to nuke bush or something like that) and I doubt the secret service would even bat an eye (provided of course they werent already investigating you for some reason...if they already thought you might try to kill the president, they might care) its a fricking buddy icon. If this kid had a diciplinary record or an obvious and open reason to severely dislike the teacher, then it might be a problem but suspending him for the entire semester (usually we call this being expelled...) for writing what was obviously a joke in a format that is impossible to take seriously...thats excessive

Re:what did he expect?

[TubeSteak]

The kid at home should be free to say what he wants or put whatever he wants on his IM.

I agree, except when those actions effect the school environment.

The school concluded that the "his actions created disruption in the school environment" & the Judge concluded that the boy's actions "caused a substantial disturbance at the school; that it is reasonable that it should have done so; and that Aaron had reason to expect that it would do so."

What more do you want?

As an aside, I don't really think 'in loco parentis' has anything to do with this situation.

Re:what did he expect?

[DougLorenz]

The kid in the story got in trouble because someone who saw his IM icon reported it to the school.

By the way, you do know that you posted your employer's name on your Slashdot personal page... You might want to edit that before some Slashdotter tries to turn you in...

Re:what did he expect?

[st0rmshad0w]

Good thing it wasn't Florida, VanderMolen could have shot the kid.

Re:what did he expect?

[Vicissidude]

The problem was that this icon was created at home, on his home computer, in his own time. The icon was not brought to school, although he apparently showed it to other students, who then mentioned it at school. The court viewed the icon itself as the threat, not the talk regarding the icon, although the icon never even left the house.

So, the effect of this ruling is that the government is telling you what you can not say in your own house.

I expect it'll be overturned on appeal.

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

I drew one where a car zoomed along the margin, took the corner at high speed, and then ran over the teacher. Splat!

that's a punchlne to an animated joke, the whole car animation is the thing there, not the ending, and the whole animation is somewhat impersonal. Who could say it was a particular teacher, or just teachers in general?. If you have written "run over and kill him" then its more a statement of intent.

Re:what did he expect?

[contrapunctus]

What would have happened if the kid had that picture on a T-shrit and was wearing it in public?
(I'm assuming an IM icon is viewable by the "public")

Re:what did he expect?

[voice_of_all_reason]

So we clearly use the ends - saving your family - to justify the means - murder.

I don't think you understand the magnitude of the expression "the ends justify the means." It applies to all instances of a type of situation -- like in the above case where "anyone who makes deadly threats should be punished"

In your specific example, it would mean that any murder justifies saving your family, even if you were a family of criminals killing the lawmen attempting to bring you to justice.

I believe ends can never justify means because there is a myriad number of paths from action A and logically only some of them will lead to any specific effect. You have to judge based on each example, as you did in your example. Killing that home intruder would be just because you have no other reasonable alternative to stopping him and it is clear that your death will be the result of not doing so.

Re:what did he expect?

[no_barcode]

"I was in second grade when i learned you can get in trouble for drawing pictures of people you don't like lying in a hospital bed."

By the time I was in second grade I had learned how to make it look like an accident.

Re:what did he expect?

[Rachel Lucid]

Technically, a school admin could decide that he could use IM at school, hence it appeared on school property... which is stupid, but possible/plausible.

Re:what did he expect?

[MoneyT]

Because reporting something you believe is suspicious to the police is a bad thing right? Question, would you prefer the police mostly act on their own hunches or on the reports of citizens?

Re:what did he expect?

[ViaD]

Well, the only thing he should expect was that somebody wanted to listen to his meanings and feelings. The only thing he got, was the experience that 'You should never trust anyone'. (Not
even trust your friend to look at the desktop of your computer...)

Uh!

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

shut the fuck up.

stop bringing "terrorism" and your distaste for the perceived "erosion" of freedoms into EVERY GODDAMNED slashdot article

(and no, I'm not talking to you personally, just all you fucking retards in general)

Re:what did he expect?

[smchris]

that's the only part of the decision i disagree with. an IM icon isn't a threat, it's an icon.

And a horse's head in your bed is just a horse's head. With the sole exception of a semester-long exile I'm with the school on this one.

Re:what did he expect?

[WCD_Thor]

While I think its good that the guy was cought, I am against the idea of people working at a photo place reporting things to police (unless its kidie porn), maybe someone will make some law to that effect, but probably not, lawmakers like spying on people. So, a lesson to all you people with explosives (and I am all for explosives if your just blowing things up and not hurting people or other people's property btw) if your going to take pictures of them, ether do it digitaly, or have your own dark room.

Re:what did he expect?

[Alien Being]

"But... the teacher (aka "the victim") felt threatened."

But was it a reasonable for him to feel threatened after the police and the doctor had investigated the situation?

Anyway, I should have paid more attention to the "IM" part of the headline. When i first read the article i thought that an "icon on his home computer" was something that only someone in his house would ever see. I wasn't thinking about it being transmitted with his chats.

Re:what did he expect?

[Alchemar]

In your example they found something suspicious, investigated it, found a valid threat, and prosucuted based on that threat. In the story they kind of left out the middle two. When you are able to punish someone for being suspicious it opens a whole can of worms. The kind of worms that just might make someone resent authority. Being punished without just cause is a pretty good reason to start a rebelion.

Re:what did he expect?

[zbuffered]

An example that supports your point, from today's news: Judge Throws Out Confession in Child Killing Case

The judge threw out this guy's confession not because he deserves it in any way, but for everyone else. Thankfully the body's discovery will keep the bastard off the streets for good. This is actually an ideal situation; it lets the judge say that he doesn't condone the police tactics, but doesn't hamstring their case either.

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

"an IM icon isn't a threat, it's an icon" .... right, and by that reasoning - I should be able to send you a written threat in email and then say "email isn't a threat, it's an email!"

What do you even think the dictionary definition of "icon" is?

Re:what did he expect?

[pikine]

You cannot plan something by thinking about it? If thinking is not a crime, why would planning be a crime?

Re:what did he expect?

[infaustus]

Burning effigies is a traditional method of political protest. It is essentially the same principle.

Re:what did he expect?

[c_forq]

I tend to disgree. I think the means to end the war with Japan were justified by the ends. If it didn't end the way it did the action would not have been been justified, and pretty much all other means were much worse ends (a land war would have been much worse for everyone involved).

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Teachers are in a constant state of feeling threatened, because they know that at any time, the world at large could discover they are essentially babysitters with no idea of how to get children to learn anything useful.

It's a difficult burden to carry.

Re:what did he expect?

[rolfwind]

I worked in San Jose a few years ago and some joker took some pictures of himself with a bunch of guns and ammo and dropped them off at the local drug store for processing. An alert employee thought there was something wrong and reported the photos to the police.

And this is why I wouldn't send photos to printing anymore. Employee would probably mistake a halloween party for a satanic ritual.

I wouldn't have though anything is wrong with guns and ammo (look at the guns and ammo magazines out there) unless the guy was holding someone hostage in the photos or something.

Guns, explosives, pipe bombs, etc. Plans to kill people at his community college were found in his home.

Link please? This sound sensationalist but possible.

I think Columbine was preventable because they were not normal kids by the time they snapped. The were picked on the "in" people and were so out of the mainstream socially, that their parents should have picked up on it. I'm not blaming them though, but now that Columbine happened people should be concerned.

But the wrong thing is to go into the other extreme and make every kid a criminal for committing childish acts. It reminds me about the push against drugs in my area - a 16 year old girl was expelled from highschool for giving her friend aspirin around here.

You don't make the world safer by making straw man criminals, find out that their "crime" is insignificant and then punish the shit out of them for raising your suspicions in the first place.

Re:what did he expect?

[Gorshkov]

How about that it's an icon, as opposed to say a note, or graffiti, or some other type of message? To paraphrase a well-known Canuck ... "It ain't the medium, it's the message" It doesnt' matter if it's an icon, sky writing, smoke signals, or carved into the belly of the teacher's pet cat. A threat is a threat is a threat - I agree with the judge that it being an icon is absolutly immaterial.

Re:what did he expect?

[Gorshkov]

If the text of the icon said something about the president instead of "Kill Mr. VanderMolen", I think the Secret Service would consider it a threat until it was investigated

It's a threat anyway - all the investigation will do is determine if it's serious or credible.

Re:what did he expect?

[bky1701]

...There is hardly a line TO draw. As long as there is one, it will be changed, moved and expanded. Total freedom or none at all, take your pick.

Re:what did he expect?

[quizzicus]

the icon never even left the house.

If he talked to anyone on IM while using this icon, then the icon did leave the house.

Re:what did he expect?

[rolfwind]

We didn't bring terror in every conversation, President Bush did. But, to be fair he says "terrah" and that could also me terra, or mother earth. He is an environmentalist!

Re:what did he expect?

[Gorshkov]

If we criminalize planning to commit a crime, the next step will be thinking about a crime

I've got news for you. It is, and has been, for a very, VERY long time, illegal to plan on committing a crime. It's called conspiracy.

Re:what did he expect?

[Savior_on_a_Stick]

"Planning a crime IS a crime. Discussing a crime IS a crime. Thinking about a crime is NOT a crime."

Assuming you are talking about US law - close - but not quite.

Neither planning nor discussing a crime are a crime.

If you are talking about conspiracy, it stills requires a contructive act on the part of at least one party before a conspiracy is considered to exist.

In this case, there is no conspiracy and the potential crime is that of communicating a threat.

It's protected speech to say "I wish you would get run over by a truck."

To say "I am going to run you over with a truck" is assault.

To actually run someone over is battery.

In the assault example, if there were clear and compelling evidence know to the victim at the time of the communication, that would be a defense. If I say I am going to run you over with a truck, but you know for a fact that I am a quadaplegic, there is no credible threat and no offense. If you find out only later that I have a deathly fear of motor vehicles, this does not mitigate my actions as the threat was credible at the time of the utterence.

The only question I have about the case is how the teacher found out about the icon. If it were in an IM from the student, then the response was correct. If it were disclosed by a third party, I'm not sure how that would play out.

In your scenario of planning a school shooting, I can plan one all day long and no crime has been committed. If I plan it with someone and either of us then goes out and purchases a couple of ski masks to use in the commission of the crime, this is a constructive act that forms the conspiracy. Note that both parties are then guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit murder even if one party was unaware of the other's action.

Re:what did he expect?

[TubeSteak]

The problem was that this icon was created at home, on his home computer, in his own time.

A Buddy Icon, a flipbook, at home, in the park, what you have not accepted, is that it doesn't matter.

His actions created "an environment threatening the health, safety and welfare of others, and his actions created disruption in the school environment".

That is all the school needs to bring about disciplinary action. Once that determination is made, the only thing left is to decide how much punishment the student will recieve.

Schools have a legitimate interest in student behavior outside the school. Especially in situations where threats are made. To suggest otherwise is to ignore reality.

Re:what did he expect?

[westlake]

I'm willing to bet that although laws specifically haven't changed, this sort of icon pre-Columbine probably wouldn't have resulted in suspension

It more likely would have ended in expulsion. But that is an argument for another time.

"In 2002, the U.S. Secret Service completed the Safe School Initiative... The study examined school shootings in the United States as far back as 1974...analyzing a total of 37 incidents involving 41 student attackers...school shootings are rarely impulsive acts. Rather, they are typically thought out and planned out in advance...prior to most shootings other kids knew the shooting was to occur - but did not alert an adult. Very few of the attackers, however, ever directed threats to their targets before the attack...there is no "profile" of a school shooter; instead, the students who carried out the attacks differed from one another in numerous ways. However, almost every attacker had engaged in behavior before the shooting that seriously concerned at least one adult - and for many had concerned three or more different adults. National Threat Assessment Center"

The kid's classmate was afraid, the kid's teacher was afraid, and reasonably so, I would think. That is all the law requires before you can take again.

Basically, are the administrators punishing only what they can see, what they know about?

Well, yeah. That's all anyone can do, really.

Re:what did he expect?

[brian0918]

"Because reporting something you believe is suspicious to the police is a bad thing right?"

Not by itself, no. If the government begins telling people to actively watch for certain activity, and encourages their reporting those persons to the police, who in turn begin holding people based on simple allegations, then we've got a big problem.

"Question, would you prefer the police mostly act on their own hunches or on the reports of citizens?"

What's the difference between citizens' hunches and police hunches?

Re:what did he expect?

[Gorshkov]

This is not typically a characteristic of "clear" messages

There was no disagreement about the clarity of the message, or if it was a threat or not. The disagreement was about the SERIOUSNESS of the threat.

The police didn't think it was serious enough to warrant prosecution - so they didn't.

The school DID think it was serious enough a violation of their code of conduct that they thought it WAS worth disiplining - so they did.

All the court did was say that the school was reasonable in what it did, and had reasonable grounds for coming to that conclusion.

Re:what did he expect?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

worked in San Jose a few years ago and some joker took some pictures of himself with a bunch of guns and ammo and dropped them off at the local drug store for processing. An alert employee thought there was something wrong and reported the photos to the police.

My friends and I gathered our collections of guns a few years back, massed them on my bed, and took pictures with them. There were 30-40 of them. We did this because it amused us. I would've been pissed if someone called the cops on us while developing the picture.

That aside (it was an irrelevant response to an irrelevant argument), I can't believe the parents are defending this either.

Re:what did he expect?

[Gorshkov]

The law is meant to include a healthy portion of common sense. Instead of common sense, however, schools use "zero tolerance". Zero tolerance is a crap policy for chickenshit bureaucrats afraid of the slightest liability.

This is one of the most common-sence court decisions I've come across here.

Again - as I stated previously .... THe kid threated a teacher. School found out. School suspends the stupid little twerp. The court says the school isn't being unreasonable.

THE LITTLE TWERP F..KED UP, AND NOW HE'S WEARING IT. How is this a bad thing?

geeze

Re:what did he expect?

[Foobar of Borg]

War on Terra is environmentalism? When did this happen?

Re:what did he expect?

[Da_Weasel]

I just don't get how suspension helped this situation...

If the kid was joking then they suspended for a whole semester for nothing...

If the kid was serious then this would only make him hate this teacher even more, and likely kill him anyway outside of the school...

Either way suspension doesn't make sense...

Re:what did he expect?

[rolfwind]

Well, it's the same logic as the "waging the war on terror" is taken to mean toppling a dictorial regime that's strongly anti-religious so that the religious fundamentalists like al-queda can begin to flourish there:)

Re:what did he expect?

[Da_Weasel]

I just don't get how suspension helped this situation...

If the kid was joking then they suspended him for a whole semester for nothing...

If the kid was serious then this would only make him hate this teacher even more, and likely kill him anyway outside of the school...

Either way suspension doesn't make sense...

Re:what did he expect?

[Monkelectric]

This talking point brought to you by the Church of Scientology. Just trust in Scientology alone to maintain your sanity, look at everything it has done for Tom Cruise...

Um, you have no idea what can of worms you just openend. I have been targeted by Scientology for speaking out against them and associating with Keith Henson. So don't even start with me.

Messing with the brain chemistry of anybody, but most of all kids is something taht needs to be done with extreme care and caution, and I dont believe our drug happy medical industry is approaching it as such.

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

The kid at home should be free to say what he wants or put whatever he wants on his IM.http://jeremiahpalecek.blogspot.com/

Re:what did he expect?

[killerjags]

The question has absolutley nothing to do with whether he was at home or at school. If you didn't know, he went to a public school, and guess who is in charge of the public schools, that's right, the government, particularly state and city. So, if he made a threat that the police(also operated by the government) found possibly hazardous, then they do have the right to punish him. It has nothing to do with where he was. Second, had he done this, it had been reported and nothing was done, then one day he shows up and kills the teacher, the end would never be seen as far as lawsuits, not to mention a life or more being loss. Something so graphic and specific as to name a teacher in a picture and then shoot her in the head deserves some attention. The worst that has happened is that the kid and friends now learned the power of words, threat, and the seriousness of crime post-columbine. To say that an aim icon shouldn't be seen as a threat is contradictory to the arguement made by the family, that he was exercising free speech. If he was trying to exercise free speech, that means he was trying to say something by his "artwork". In saying it as something of that nature, then it should be taken just as seriously as written messages, or others on a different media. I don't understand any lawyers who would argue the point they tried to argue which is that it was free speech. Unfortunatley, while we are allowed free speech, that does not include violent threats, especially in the world we live in, and anyone who believes they do or should is an idiot. Had we listened to threats from terrosist, thousands would be alive, had we listened to threats columbine students would be alive, threats are a great way to pinpoint students who are troubled, and if nothing else stupid enough to make a violent threat that they should know could get them in trouble.

Re:what did he expect?

[MrNaz]

Children need to learn what it means to be a productive, positive influence on the world around them. Having said that, I have absolutely no idea, and cannot comment on where to draw the line between childrens' rights to be children and society's right to ensure healthy upbringing. Furthermore, I have no idea what exactly constitutes and healthy upbringing and what does not. These questions need to be investigated by those experienced in handling children with compassion. That means your professional school principles who handle 10,000 children a year but hever married and had children of their own are not up to the task.

On a similar note, I think the idea that schools could or should act in place of parents is just loco, señor. Children need parents who see them as their flesh and blood, not teachers who see them collectively as a job.

Oh, and I have no idea how that kid should have been dealt with. However, missing out on a semester is counter productive, as whatever anger and resentment now has a semester to fester. When I was a kid, pulling stunts like that got me a belting from my folks. Thats what this world needs more of. parents who aren't scared to give their kids a spanking. Long-winded psychological games don't work and just build resentment long after the child has forgotten what he or she did in the first place.

Steal cookie.
Spank.
End.

It's a much closer association with what not to do, and over time as the child grows they will learn why stealing is bad. Week-long groundings or confiscation of the X-Box don't get associated with whatever the child did to cause it. I went to a friend's house where a child had been banned from X-Box for a week due to hitting his 3yo sister with a book. After having a chat with him he said he was grounded coz his parents were stupid. I asked him why they took it away and as far as I could tell he didn't even know. It had been 3 days since the incident.

Childrens' perception of time is completely different to adults'. For an 8yo, one week is an immesurably long period of time. Remember how long it took for the weekends to arrive? How unimaginably far away the summer holidays seemed even though it was only 3 weeks away? Fast forward, and me, as a 27 year old, can blink and miss an entire month.

All this rambling really boils down to me trying to say that children need more than regimented procedure, school rule books and "politically correct" punishment. They need the love, support and firm guidance that only a real parent or honest socially aware teacher can provide. I know many loving parents, but honest, socially aware teachers are few and far between.

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been the duh statement of the year here, but obviously there are some people on here who need this kind of thing explained.

In the US there is a popular movement to hold entertainers accountable for children or unstable adults who imitate ficional crimes depicted in video games, movies, comic books and so on.

In computer security and content protection there are attempts being made to make discussing vulnerabilities a crime.

In the aftermath of Rawanda there are attempts to limit discussion that incites others to hatred and encourages them to comit crimes.

I don't believe it is quite as simple as "concrete planning forbidden, abstract discussion acceptable".

Re:what did he expect?

[killerjags]

NO, If you think just because you are at home then you can say whatever you want, you are extremely mistaken. If you call someone and tell them you will kill them from home, you will be arrested. If you write all over the wall at your house that you will kill someone, you will be arrested, if you write threats to the President and never send them, you will be arrested, I don't know why people think just because you are at home then you can do whatever you want. If it poses a danger to another, no matter where you are, you can get in trouble.

Re:what did he expect?

[jasonditz]

Worth pointing out: You're discussing a crime right now.

Is this an admission of guilt?

Shit, and now I'm discussing your discussion.

Re:what did he expect?

[TheSkyIsPurple]

>But was it a reasonable for him to feel threatened after the police and the doctor had investigated the situation?

Did the teacher report the situation only after getting the police and a doctor to evaluate? Sounds backwards to me

Re:what did he expect?

[dave1212]

So now you live in fear of everyone else? That's kind of sad.

Here, read this comment farther down. You guys really need to take a look at yourselves and how you're feeding your own fear.

Re:what did he expect?

[Hoolala]

I agree fully. In certain environments, like a school, being disruptive is not a right nor a privilege. Free speech, sure, but that does not mean one is free from the responsibilities/consquences the one's speech brings. You are free to scream fire in a crowded theatre, but that does not mean your are not going to face X years in a federal ass pounding prison.

Re:what did he expect?

[diamondmagic]

I can assemble, manufacture and setup a bomb in international waters and there in nothing anyone can do about it. None of that is relivent when it goes kaboom within the borders of the United States or any other country with rules reguarding explosives (that is, all of them), seeing as the otherwise not-illegeal actions resulted in somthing happening within the country.

In fact, I don't even need to launch it, I could still get cited for disrupting the peace, which depending on the severity could land you in prison for life (seeing as the peace was breached within the country, not at the creation site).

Re:what did he expect?

[belmolis]

Not quite. Conspiracy requires an overt act in furtherance of the crime. If you do nothing but plan, you're safe. If, however, you take a concrete step in addition to planning, such as obtaining weapons or other equipment, then you are guilty of conspiracy. It doesn't take an awful lot, but the need for an overt act is intended to prevent prosecution for mere bs-ing and to make it worthwhile to back off from a plan even if it is serious.

Re:what did he expect?

[derflattusmouse]

Of course "This isn't the 1950's and the Cleaver's we're discussing here." In the real world the Cleavers lived on the same street as the Munsters. The rest of us were talking about reality in which some dummy driving and talking on a cell phone presents a far greater threat to your person or your family than school shootings and gun nuts do. Look it up. They really did live on the same street!!

Re:what did he expect?

[hazem]

Please don't yell.

I'm not saying anything about being at home and immune to the law.

What I'm saying is that the school should have no jurisdiction over what the kid does at home. That's what is parents and law enforcement are for. It may be against school rules to run in the halls with scissors. If a kid does this at home, the school should have no say in the matter - as that should be reserved for the parents. In Loco Parentis should only apply when the kid is at school or in school-related activities.

Re:what did he expect?

[Zemran]

I taught at high school for a couple of years before running off screaming to Asia. I wish I had taken every kid that threatened me to court because then I would have been in court every day instead of in front of all those arguementative teenagers.

The school definately overreacted, the parents overreacted and the boy needed to be punished for what he did. It should not have been treated as a death threat as that is not only stupid but gives the event more credability than it deserves. The kid is now an anti hero when he should have been a boy that got caught being excessively rude. This sort of system teaches kids to be anti heroes. He will enjoy the notoriety and respond to it by becoming the person they are making him into. This is more likely to create the sort of child that they want to avoid.

Re:what did he expect?

[nihaopaul]

ianaloa (+or american) but can't this be a parody instead of a threat? granted the kid was probably pissed at the teacher and we've all been there before, many times, but seriously, how many people would `actually` do it?

Re:what did he expect?

[deficite]

You don't even have to go that far with it. The first amendment does not protect against threats. Your rights end when they infringe on others' rights, and if someone feels threatened because of your words, actions, or "art", then your first amendment is not going to protect you. It's like if I came to your house and said "I'm going to kill your wife and then rape your daughter". I really hope that me saying "But I have free speech" wouldn't get me out of that situation.

I've come across a similar problem. It doesn't involve threats, but I once made a satirical website targetted at a group of people at school I severely dislike. There was no threats involved, and I didn't really directly insult them at all. All I did was retell certain events how they happened so that everybody could read how foolish these people are. So one day said group threatens me at school and tries to cause some big scene in my Honors American History class. I didn't give a crap, I knew they couldn't back up any threat, but guess where I'm stuck the next day of school? I'm stuck in the guidance counseler's office (a lot of my friends were stuck in there too. Basically anybody mentioned in my site besides said group). I was accused of being a neo-nazi, cultist, and a threat to the entire student body. Then I found out why I was put in there. One of the members of said group lied to the guidance office and said that I made a bunch of threats to them and that they were "fearful that I might have developed a psychological condition they read about in their psychology book". Ok, this person who did this happens to be one of those christian zealots who claims they are holier than everybody else. The guidance counseler is a preacher at a local church.

It's funny too, because my site caused no disturbances (they caused the disturbance on purpose because they are attention whores and they were trying to get me in trouble because they hate me) and I caused no damage at all. Those stories usually involved crap they had done to me in the past, so I was not writing anything inflamatory or hate-related. There were just accounts of how I got screwed. And then I get screwed yet again. An aside here: they have targetted and destroyed two websites created by people at our school by paying an admin off on one of the boards and utter spamming on another one. Yet, only one of them ever got in any kind of trouble at all, and all it was was one day in in-school-suspension. I get called a fucking neo-nazi. I was the damn victim. All I was trying to do is voice how I had been treated and I get treated even worse. I see them all as cowards and low-lifes. They have to lie to people in staff positions to handle their problems. I deal with them. Problem is, it's hard to deal with problems when you have the "authorities" being fed full of shit and having eyes on you wherever you go.

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ends never justify means.

That's incomprehensible. The word "ends" means a goal. The word "means" means the method of achieving that goal. What you just wrote is completely meaningless. What else could possibly justify a means?

Re:what did he expect?

[TubeSteak]

Actually, I need to retract my "the teacher felt threatened" statement.

I read the Judge's Opinion & according to the laws, it is irrelevant if the person being threatened feels threatened.

But was it a reasonable for him to feel threatened after the police and the doctor had investigated the situation?

Also not relevant.
The School was responding to the threat as they saw it.

The Federal Judge did not rule on the Police & Doctor's opinion in relation to the school's actions. He said it was a matter for State Court.

Re:what did he expect?

[MisaDaBinksX4evah]

"But... the teacher (aka "the victim") felt threatened."

So what? How is the teacher a "victim?"

A feeling does not justify legal action. If it did, the fact that some people look at other people in a threatening manner on the bus could land the perpetrators in jail. Doesn't this sound a little insane to you?

Re:what did he expect?

[gbulmash]

"That means your professional school principles who handle 10,000 children a year but hever married and had children of their own are not up to the task."

So you believe that Britney Spears (married with two kids) is up to the task?

- G

Re:what did he expect?

[AmberBlackCat]

Maybe it's just an icon, but if he actually ended up killing the teacher, everybody would be asking why nobody paid such attention to a blatant red flag. Everybody thought those Colombine kids' website was just a stupid AOL homepage.

Re:what did he expect?

[blitziod]

well i dunno about that state..here in Texas, a threat must be able to be carried out and a reasonable person must believe that it is likely to be carried out. Examples: "I hate you so bad I am gonna kill you with my mutant mind powers" would not be a threat because it can not be carried out. "I'm going to murder you" uttered on the football field at the opposing teams quarterback would also not be a threat, unless some special circumnstances applied.

Re:what did he expect?

[Planesdragon]

There are in the past 20 years several accounts of perfectly normal children ....

Sorry, no. Each of those "perfectly normal children" wasn't, and the failure -- as no one less than Marilyn Manson said -- was that the parents and educators both didn't notice and didn't listen.

Do you know what's changed? we closed teh frontier and stopped fighting meat-grinder wars, leaving no place for the distraught to go. Which meanst that we have to find a way to reach those of us who would just as soon leave town as continue.

Re:what did he expect?

[MoneyT]

Two minds.

A police man acting on a whim or hunch requires only himself to act. A citizen requires finding a like minded officer.

Re:what did he expect?

[blitziod]

hey I would like to get a copy of the icon...I think it would be cool if people all over the country started using it ..it would make that teacher feel like a REAL dick..he is after all...and show support for free speech

Re:what did he expect?

[Belial6]

Just wait until the school decides that your child playing video games in your home is a disruption at school. What happens when they decide that your child reading certain books at home will create a disruption at home. This is exactly the kind of garbage that makes not only children, but parents hostile towards the schools. If what the kid did was illegal, call the cops. If it wasn't, then the school has no say.

Re:what did he expect?

[brian0918]

You're just making this up as you go along... Enjoy.

Re:what did he expect?

[jZnat]

If I come to your house, steal something, and you don't notice it for a year, am I guilty of theft?

No, you're guilty of burglary actually. ;p

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

W0w... A voice of reason coming from someone in Texas.
This is akin to someone getting in a fight for wearing
an i'm with stupid T-shirt and standing next to the wrong
guy.

I feel that this kid could possibly win in an appeal.

Re:what did he expect?

[tonyray]

I suppose having a picture of Jesus crucified on your bedroom wall would be considered reason to be expelled if you had a teacher name Jesus Rodrigez. Good grief.

I'm afraid I'm too old. No teacher would have felt threatened by a stupid, childish icon when I was a kid. And, yah, back then the icon would most certainly have been totally cool.

Re:what did he expect?

[mrspandex]

Public schools have policies that restrict the constitutional rights of students and they can therefore punish students where an adult citizen might only be investigated.

I believe that concept is called in loco parentis. It means "in place of the parent" - that the school acts in the place of the parent while the child is at school. The problem is, it should only apply when the kids "in loco" the school. The kid at home should be free to say what he wants or put whatever he wants on his IM.

It's still a dumb thing to do.

So just loco.

Re:what did he expect?

[Bent Mind]

I really don't know where to draw the line, but it certainly seems the pendulum has swung in the direction of treating all students as potential Columbinites.

Several years ago I started working for an Internet startup. The people were close-knit and it was common to pass around Internet jokes in e-mail. The company is now a large corporation. Sending jokes via email is expressly forbidden. You get fired for it. Why this hard-line stance? To avoid harassment lawsuits. I'm sure this applies to schools as well. The pendulum has swung, but for everyone, not just students.

Re:what did he expect?

[igb]

Conspiracy requires an overt act in furtherance of the crime.

Get legal advice before relying on postings on slashdot. This isn't true in England, I don't think it's true in Scotland, I'd be stunned if it were true in France, and I recall reading it isn't true in all US states (for example, most broad generalisations break down in Louisiana).

ian

Re:what did he expect?

[jgrahn]

I can assemble, manufacture and setup a bomb in international waters and there in nothing anyone can do about it. None of that is relivent when it goes kaboom within the borders of the United States or any other country [...]

There should be something like Godwin's Law for comparing something to international terrorism and The War on Terrorism when, in fact, it has nothing to do with it. (Except, in this case, a threat to use violence.)

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I think you're a dick. I hope you don't mind if I distribute a short film depicting you being ass raped and dismembered.

Thank you.

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently because they're afraid they might not have enough time to unlock their gun cupboard next time the British invade or something... I never did quite follow the second-amendment argument.

No, of course not. The right to bear arms is an important part of our system of checks and balances:

• The president gets veto rights and gets to choose the justices
• Congress gets to impeach the president and modify the constitution
• The supreme court gets to declare everybody's actions unconstitutional
• The people get to shoot up the politicians when things go wrong.

Re:what did he expect?

[geoff lane]

"Thinking about a crime is NOT a crime"

You must have missed the memo - it is now.

Re:what did he expect?

[getwhipped]

You mean that word that you just wrote? The one with quotes around it?

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is a "semster"?

"asside"?

You're an idiot. Please don't post here anymore. Go back to Myspace, where you belong.

Re:what did he expect?

[jibjibjib]

If you distributed a film depicting me being ass raped and dismembered, I wouldn't care.

Re:what did he expect?

[jibjibjib]

Kill CowboyNeal!

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to Myspace, whiner. Nobody cares about your teenaged angst, nor how oppressed you think you are.

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

"In the real world the Cleavers lived on the same street as the Munsters"

In the real world, neither the Cleavers nor the Munsters ever lived at all. They were what we call "fictional characters", you see, appearing in what are known as "television shows".

"The rest of us were talking about reality"

Others might have been talking about reality, but you don't seem to have a very firm grasp on it.

Re:what did he expect?

[raduf]

    Moral of the story? Just "pop the cap in Mr X's ass", don't brag about it before or after. It's a lot safer.

Re:what did he expect?

[mkw87]

I was in second grade when i learned you can get in trouble for drawing pictures of people you don't like lying in a hospital bed.

One question, was it Bill Gates?

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was accused of being a neo-nazi, cultist, and a threat to the entire student body. Then I found out why I was put in there. One of the members of said group lied to the guidance office and said that I made a bunch of threats to them and that they were "fearful that I might have developed a psychological condition they read about in their psychology book". Ok, this person who did this happens to be one of those christian zealots who claims they are holier than everybody else. The guidance counseler is a preacher at a local church.

Here's the really funny part: The real world is just like this!! If you think high school is bad, wait until you graduate (or drop-out) and you have to join the workforce. You will encounter all kinds of crazy people who will say all kinds of nasty things behind your back.

Look at your recent experience with "said group" as a learning experience. You have just learned something that is far more valuable than anything you'd learn in American History.

If you are still in school, then I am at least twice your age. I've been in the workforce for a while and I can assure you that life just ain't fair. You need to pick your battles and be smart. Putting comments on a web page where someone can print them out, hand them to "an authority" and say "I think he may have this personality disorder I heard about on Dr. Phil" is putting a weapon in the hands of people who are working against you.

Re:what did he expect?

[scottv67]

Teachers are in a constant state of feeling threatened, because they know that at any time, the world at large could discover they are essentially babysitters with no idea of how to get children to learn anything useful.

Really? I think the kid who made the icon (and all of the other kids in his school) have just learned a very valuable lesson that they will be able to use later in life.

Re:what did he expect?

[NexFlamma]

Of course, the argument falls apart if he had ever used his IM program while at school, or even possibly in communication with someone who was at the school.

What kind of odds would you take on the fact that the kid never got bored in the library and decided to have some hot IM cyb0rz with b1gb00tyb@be99?

Re:what did he expect?

[Guppy06]

"that's the only part of the decision i disagree with. an IM icon isn't a threat, it's an icon."

And the "Nuremberg List" is just a directory of doctors?

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly the point - he wouldn't care. He'd know you weren't serious, because unlike the teacher in this story, he's neither a pussy nor too stupid to recognize the reality of a threat.

Re:what did he expect?

[alshithead]

It seems innocuous on the outside but the schools and law enforcement generally investigate things like this when they are noticed, or if someone brings it to the authorities. Some of it is post-Columbine caution. Too many kids have taken violence into the schools so either the cops or school or both will look at something like this very carefully. The Secret Service applies the same kind of greater scrutiny in the case of possible threats to the president or others they are assigned to protect. If the icon had referred in the same manner towards the President and an adult was displaying the icon, they would have at the minimum had a very unpleasant interview with the Secret Service. Potential jail time is possible if you can't convince them you arent' a threat. This kid did something he probably should have known would be frowned upon at the very least. The only thing they punished him for was the disruption he created at school...and that was probably A LOT of disruption. Did he intend for it to cause that extreme disruption? Probably not but he did something stupid and his punishment is probably appropriate.

Re:what did he expect?

[ResidntGeek]

And yet, teacher's don't get paid to teach teenagers that people you hate can cause you pain. They get paid to teach American History, math, biology, etc. And they do a pretty crappy job in most cases, leading to things like this icon.

Re:what did he expect?

[pla]

Children need to learn what it means to be a productive, positive influence on the world around them

Why?

As part of my right to pursue happyness comes the "right" to act as negative as I want (up to breaking the law), and to drain society and those around me of as much productivity as possible (again, short of breaking the law).

In short, I have the right to act like a Miserable Bastard.

Now, death threats in general go to far, but y'know - An icon does not equal a death threat. Ill-wishing does not mean committing verbal assault. Every morning I wake up and optimisticially scan the headlines to see if a certain leader of the "free" world has suffered a massive stroke the previous night; that doesn't mean I would unwisely risk my current uncaged status to promote such a headline.



I have absolutely no idea, and cannot comment on where to draw the line between childrens' rights to be children and society's right to ensure healthy upbringing.

Let me darken that line for you, then - Society has no such right, whereas, as elaborated above, children (and the rest of us) do have the right to Miserable Bastardy.



That means your professional school principles who handle 10,000 children a year but hever married and had children of their own are not up to the task.

Yeah, riiiiiight - Because some 4th-gen welfare mom with three kids and another on the way certainly has, simply by virtue of having spread her legs, the wisdom and compassion to properly raise "productive, positive influence[s] on the world around them".



When I was a kid, pulling stunts like that got me a belting from my folks. Thats what this world needs more of.

Lest you think I sound too antagonistic above, here I agree with you completely.

As the core problem here, the kid did something stupid and arguably "bad". But not bad in a "call the police, everyone panic, suspend for a semester" way - Just "good spanking and grounded for a week" bad.

I suppose that goes back to your main point, which (taking the happy fluffy angle out of it) I read as nothing more drastic than that parents need to act as parents, not delegate the task to teachers, to ISPs, to MySpace, to Nickelodeon or PBS, to NetNanny, or to the government. Likewise, those groups need to not take airs and try to assume the role of parents, deferring instead to the dreaded "I'll call your mother, young man!"

Re:what did he expect?

[TheGavster]

If you scream fire in a crowded theater, the charge is typically for the injuries caused in the stampede of people fleeing the building. In this case, he draw a picture and his buddies said "hehe that's pretty funny". If we're going to start charging people with "inciting amusement", I'm not sure where we're headed.

Re:what did he expect?

[danielk1982]

This is exactly the kind of garbage that makes not only children, but parents hostile towards the schools.

Parents are already hostile towards schools when their little Johnny isn't handled like porcelain.

Just wait until the school decides that your child playing video games in your home is a disruption at school. What happens when they decide that your child reading certain books at home will create a disruption at home.

There are limits, and this situation is different. He made an explicit threat against a teacher. Now, its probably a stupid joke (not funny BTW), but the school has to act on it or a) They might have the union on their ass if the threatened teacher complains nothing was done; b) God forbid, the kid actually carries out his threat and then government and police officials will be on their ass asking why they ignored a clear message like this; c) Its a stupid joke, and its not funny at all. Its a passive aggressive way to bully the said teacher. Besides, once a student complained, they *HAD* to act.

Re:what did he expect?

[GooberToo]

All employers are required by law to provide a reasonably threat free and safe environment! The district was required by law to act.

For anyone to defend that kid without actually knowing what's going on inside his head is terribly irresponsible! First of all...most cops are in no position to determine if something of this nature is crediable or not. Period. So their opinion is wholely without value. Second of all, you can shop around and find someone in mental health that will agree to just about any conclussion you want...so that opinion is wholey discredited too. At the least, only someone terribly ignorant would be willing to take it at face value without know a whole lot more details.

The simple fact is, UNDER THE LAW, his actions constitute a clear, poster-boy definition of a threat! This fact was completely reaffirmed by the courts. So for the police to have said otherwise suggest the police are idiots and don't even know or understand the law. As such, it means jack if the boy intended to act on it or not. To excuse this means EVERYONE is allowed to run around my community, just for the fun of it, to drop off dead animals...threatening pictures and letters...and generally terrorize my community. But wait...someone made a law and agreed that we can not have a society the functions like that. The boy crossed the line and SHOULD be punished....very...very...very harshly to make an example out of him and other recklessly stupid kids that think in this day and age it's funny to terrorize and threaten people! Personally, I think he got off light!

On a side note, in this day and age, for a child and obviously the parents, to think that behavior is accecptible only proves how reckless and out of touch those parents are. That simply conclusion only further re-enforces that courts and the school district did the right thing. Period.

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

What more do I expect? How about using the correct word in the correct context. His actions affect the school, they don't effect the school. Dumb ass.

Re:what did he expect?

[deficite]

The funniest thing was I wasn't asking for any sympathy, or if anybody even cared. I was just sharing an experience. It sounds like YOU are the one needing to return to MySpace, because most people who say crap like " whiner!" are usually people who can't handle life, has a lot of problems, and are generally very depressed people. To deal with it they call everybody else whiners for actually sharing their experiences. You know what you are? Weak.

Re:what did he expect?

[belmolis]

Get legal advice before relying on postings on slashdot

This goes without saying. If you really need to know, you need a lawyer with knowledge of the relevant jurisdiction. In fact, in most countries conspiracy does not require an overt act, and it did not under English common law, but in the United States in most jurisdictions for most kinds of conspiracy it does. Since the context of the discussion is an American case, this is relevant.

Re:what did he expect?

[Hoolala]

A drawing of a gun to someone's head is not "inciting amusement"...Besides, it's never a bad thing to learn respect.

Re:what did he expect?

[loraksus]

You apparantly have some faith in the legal system that DAs and prosecutors will act rationally.
DA's can press whatever charges they want, even if they are completely off the ball. This usually isn't a problem, but sometimes, especially when a murder is involved, tempers flare and stuff happens.
I have virtualy no faith in juries, btw, you might think differently.

Re:what did he expect?

[cHiphead]

you 'choose' to view his icon. so no, it did not just 'leave' the house, it was requested.

Cheers.

Re:what did he expect?

[TheGavster]

He drew a picture, his buddies were amused. The person in the picture wasn't, but I wasn't real amused when that guy flicked me off on the highway this morning either.

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

the icon is a threat because it names a specific person with a specific intent, according to the ruling, the icon would be protected by the free speech if the icon just said "kill" and had the graphics, but because the icon displayed a name and an event, it was concerned as a threat. Threats are real when the violence is directed towards something.

Re:what did he expect?

[mrchaotica]

I agree, except when those actions effect the school environment.

Oh come on, that's no restriction at all! You know if that's the criteria then the school is just gonna come up with some bullshit argument along the lines of "a butterfly flaps its wings in africa... therefore, there was a hurricane in Miami" to justify punishing anything whatsoever that the school officials don't like!

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I made a buddy icon of video game lawyer Jack Thompson being shot in the head, is that okay? Apparently so. Is it okay to paste Bin Laden's face on a dart board and take pot shots at it? Most Americans would agree that it's fine. Is it okay to make a TV show where a 10 year old boy gets killed in various horrific ways in every single episode? It's not only okay, it's a huge mainstream hit!

Point being, it seems that expressions of violence seem to be "okay" depending on how people feel about the subject. Luckily, the First Amendment doesn't have an "okay" clause. Free Speech doesn't care if you like it or not.

Re:what did he expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

KILL GEORGE BUSH JR.!!! Now, am I saying that I want to kill "George"? No. Am I telling you to kill "George"? No. What I have stated is an OPINION, that "George" must die now and not by old age. I feel that I must HATE this "George" so much that he must be killed. Why can't I say that? Oh, that's right, it's like yelling "Fire" in a theater. Umm, no it's not, it's nothing like it at all. All this boy did is put some opinion in an icon. What if he wore the icon on a t-shirt, or made a sign and put it up on his front lawn, would he be given the same trouble? Probably. Over a statement with some art attached to it. If it was me I think would have preferred to show a person being anally impaled on a greased 10" wide pole, instead of a bullet to the head, but that's just me. I think it would be just fucking beautiful to see "George" die that way. I am sure some of you would agree, and many others not, but all I have done is made an opinion and shared with you. Am I going to do this to "George"? Never. Would I stop it from happening if I could? Only if I could see a greater good from "George" living instead of dying, which is very doubtful since "George" is one evil motherfucker. Is there something wrong with feeling that you would let someone die? There is, but we as a race arn't enlightened enough to be above those feelings completely. So expressing the way you feel is something to be punished? I don't understand what the boy did wrong and why the school can punish him like that, because I'm sure that I can wear a t-shirt with "George" lovingly impaled on my t-shirt. Instead of looking into why the boy feels this way (and if there was anything that lead to this, including if the teacher was incompetent) and wants to state an opinion of "kill so and so", did they talk to the boy and find out why he feels that way? I don't think so, all the establishment knows is to pound that brick back into the wall.

Re:what did he expect?

[MrNaz]

You have just provided me with a perfect example of one of society's greatest problems: The celebration of apathy. I don't intend for this post to be personal, but for convenience, I will word it using "I" and "you" to represent our differing views. Please don't interpret this as a personal tirade :)

Why do children need to learn to be productive and postitive? Because if they don't you end up with an unenlightened, ignorant, unproductive bunch of sheep for citizens. Such citizens are easily herded by unscrupulous leaders for their own agenda. While I don't want our leaders to make laws against being miserable bastards, I would like our educators to strongly encourage the next generation not to be.

As part of my right to pursue happyness comes the "right" to act as negative as I want (up to breaking the law), and to drain society and those around me of as much productivity as possible (again, short of breaking the law).

Western society has is currently experiencing a "rights fetish". Everyone seems to talk about their rights to do this and that. While I agree that each person has a right to pursue their own happiness, I am dumbfounded that nobody seems to have any concept of the duties that go along with them. You want the right to free speech? Then you have the duty to protect the free speech of others. You want the right to freedom of movement, then you have a duty to not obstruct others. You want the right to social benefits such as unemployment payments? Then you have the duty to be productive, should you have the opportunity. Every right has a converse duty, and I respect nobody's rights who doesn't understand their corresponding duty. Want to be a miserable, unproductive bastard? Fine, but don't expect me to respect your right to my tax money. I don't see how people consider it to be a fundamental right to live in America as an unproductive bastard yet still have relative luxury, while people push themselves beyond breaking point in less fortunate areas of the world and still end up starving to death. Excuse my idealistic retort, but that just ain't right.

Society has no such right, whereas, as elaborated above, children (and the rest of us) do have the right to Miserable Bastardy.

See above. Children need to learn that rights come with duties, and you cannot have one without the other. This "rights fetish" has been pushed by American culture too far, IMHO. Rights can only exist if they are supported by society, and society can only support rights if people carry out their duties. Tax is not a sufficient fulfillment of that duty. Tax money makes roads, hospitals, schools and government buildings, but it does not buy your right to free speech or freedom from opression. Those rights only come into being when others execute upon their social duties.

Yeah, riiiiiight - Because some 4th-gen welfare mom with three kids and another on the way certainly has, simply by virtue of having spread her legs, the wisdom and compassion to properly raise "productive, positive influence[s] on the world around them".

I wasn't saying ALL parents are better than school teachers, only that at the moment there is a tendency to over psychologise and over medicate children. The modern education system seems to be going through some classification phase where kids are given labels and force fit into models of behavior. A kid who might have been called a "quiet achiever" in another time is now labelled with "Aspergers Syndrome" and given medication. A child who is active and curious is labelled with "ADHD" and medicated. What happened to children being individuals with different personalities ranging from quiet and content to sit alone through to active and hungry for attention. These are just different traits, not syndromes or conditions.

I'd rather Aunty Beth with the floral apron and feather duster handling my kids than some dick with a major in education and a PhD in child psychology armed with a veritable arsenal of drugs, especially considerin

Re:what did he expect?

[MrNaz]

(Pasted raw from another post of mine)

I wasn't saying ALL parents are better than school teachers, only that at the moment there is a tendency to over psychologise and over medicate children. The modern education system seems to be going through some classification phase where kids are given labels and force fit into models of behavior. A kid who might have been called a "quiet achiever" in another time is now labelled with "Aspergers Syndrome" and given medication. A child who is active and curious is labelled with "ADHD" and medicated. What happened to children being individuals with different personalities ranging from quiet and content to sit alone through to active and hungry for attention. These are just different traits, not syndromes or conditions.

I'd rather Aunty Beth with the floral apron and feather duster handling my kids than some dick with a major in education and a PhD in child psychology armed with a veritable arsenal of drugs, especially considering that getting to that level of qualification often precludes acquiring a rich and rewarding social experience when young. A great example of a man who knows all the science behind humanity, but has none, is to be seen in Harry Harlow [wikipedia.org]. He exemplifies what I mean when I say that someone can be an expert in something, yet still know nothing about it. For those of you who don't know who he is, he sought to investigate the nature of love and compassion between living creatures, but did this by performing the most horrific experiments on chimps. He was honoured by the American Psychological Association for his work. However, while he may have proved that love between parent and child exists, and disproved the Freudian belief that the child-mother link is purely due to the mother being a source of sustennance, he completely neglected his family, alienating his own children. His last years were reported to be miserable and lonely. In 1969 however, any school would have jumped at the opportunity to have him as their principal. Thank God he considered himself overqualified for such a lowly position.

Re:what did he expect?

[pla]

Good response!

We'll have to agree to disagree on some of your ideas, but I don't think we diverge all that far.

I'd like to clarify my stance on one point, however... When I say people have the right to act like a miserable bastard, I agree completely that such right does not include the right to dip into your tax dollars.

But as far as teaching kids not to behave that way, I'd call the behavior either defensive or self-punishing - In the former, punishment will just reinforce it ("the world sucks and everyone hates me - see? They even want to punish me just for trying to express myself!"), and in the latter, it doesn't take punishment to demonstrate that you get more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Re:what did he expect?

[anandsr]

This thing is totally hopeless. In what kind of a place does this happen. I wouldn't call these people civilized.
Firstly, obviously the Teacher is Evil. Otherwise the student would not be having imaginations of the teacher being killed. If the teacher was not evil and if this was a mistake the teacher would have tried to solve the problem by talking to the child and their parents. But he goes out and get the child suspended. Thereby proving that he was Evil. The School is either stupid or evil or both, when they cannot understand that the Teacher is f***king with the minds of the young students. Now the judge also sides with the Teacher. These guys have got an explosive situation in their hands. They don't understand that the children cannot think very far. An anger in them can cause them to do anything. The Columbine incident was not because the children were evil but the school was evil in not allaying their fears. This will result in more Columbines.

Re:what did he expect?

[plague3106]

Why should you get in trouble for pictures like that? Drawing a picture doesn't mean you're going to do anything. More likely, its the creation of the picture itself which is the outlet for any anger.

I know, my sister expressed herself this way by writing poems. It was her way of expressing her depression and helped her get through it. Later, she even entered some into some minor competitions.

The icon wasn't a threat, any idiot can see that.

Re:what did he expect?

[plague3106]

His actions created "an environment threatening the health, safety and welfare of others, and his actions created disruption in the school environment".

No, it didn't. Prove that it did. And some over reacting moron isn't proof either.

Schools have a legitimate interest in student behavior outside the school. To suggest otherwise is to ignore reality.

No they don't. Its not the schools job to raise the child, only educate them in science, math, etc. To suggest that the school should have any power once your kid leaves the class room is idiotic.

Re:what did he expect?

[plague3106]

You're full of it.

a) They might have the union on their ass if the threatened teacher complains nothing was done

They can tell the union that they don't see the icon as a threat and to calm the fuck down.

b) God forbid, the kid actually carries out his threat and then government and police officials will be on their ass asking why they ignored a clear message like this

Is there any evidence at all that the kid even meant the icon as a threat? No. For all you know, thats where his anger stopped. Its quite normal for kids to express themselves through art (which this is, by the way).

c) Its a stupid joke, and its not funny at all. Its a passive aggressive way to bully the said teacher.

YOU don't think its funny, I'm sure there are people out there who do. If you can reconize that, the I suggest you shut yourself in your house and never come out again. I find it hard to believe that the icon is a passive agressive way to bully the teacher, considering the teacher would never have known about it if the other student didn't report it. I think its reasonable to believe that the kid never thought the teacher would see it, so the threat angle is out totally. More likely, he was expressing his anger at the teacher, which makes you wonder what exactly the teacher did that prompted him to create the icon in the first place.

Re:what did he expect?

[danielk1982]

I find it hard to believe that the icon is a passive agressive way to bully the teacher, considering the teacher would never have known about it if the other student didn't report it.

That's the key. Because some kid reported it (who seemed to not find it funny), the school had to act, even if to talk to the kid and tell him to take it down. Then there is context; if this kid is a straight A student, who is friends with all the teachers and is a known joker..ok, maybe they wouldn't do anything.. if this kid is someone who frequently clashes with the said teacher and has had brushes with the law, the joke becomes less funny to the school and to the teacher; or maybe there's a policy of automatic suspension for any issued death threat.

Is there any evidence at all that the kid even meant the icon as a threat? No. For all you know, thats where his anger stopped. Its quite normal for kids to express themselves through art (which this is, by the way).

Its funny how you say this is less of a joke, and more of an act of anger..but anywho.. there might not be any evidence that the kid wishes pursue this further, but the school are not mind-readers - they will cover their asses legally. They just can't ignore this now that another student complained about it. Chances are they had to fill out forms pertaining to this incident because of the nature of this complaint, if the kid did do something, police would have come back to them and said "look, on this day he threatened this teacher and you did nothing, why not?".. all of sudden its the administration's asses that are on the line...hell they might get sued by the union or the teacher's family for millions of dollars. This is an unlikely scenario, but schools have learned to do everything by the book.

I suppose death threats, death lists and any other "art" can be a way for kids to express themselves (what kind of kid expresses himself with a death threat?), but he better keep it private if he doesn't want to suffer the consequences.

Re:what did he expect?

[plague3106]

Because some kid reported it (who seemed to not find it funny), the school had to act, even if to talk to the kid and tell him to take it down.

No, the school didn't have to do anything except say, 'ok, thanks.' The student still enjoys free speech, because the icon wasn't a threat, since it was never meant to be seen by the teacher. Intention is key here.

Then there is context; if this kid is a straight A student, who is friends with all the teachers and is a known joker..ok, maybe they wouldn't do anything.. if this kid is someone who frequently clashes with the said teacher and has had brushes with the law, the joke becomes less funny to the school and to the teacher; or maybe there's a policy of automatic suspension for any issued death threat.

It doesn't seem he ever intended for the icon to be seen by the teacher. Its therefore hard to argue that the kid was going to do anything more, so the fact that he may be "good or bad" outside of school is irrelevent. Just because he may have been arrested for stealing doesn't mean he'll murder someone. The school's policy is irrelevent too, since, again, it seems clear the student never intended for the icon to be seen by the teacher. I don't think you can say that you were threatened by someone if they never delieved the threatening message.

Its funny how you say this is less of a joke, and more of an act of anger

It could just be a totally unprovoked joke. I have no idea. It seems likely that the student was angry at the time he made the icon, but thats just a guess on my part. He may not have been angry at all.

there might not be any evidence that the kid wishes pursue this further, but the school are not mind-readers - they will cover their asses legally.

But that's exactly what the school is claiming to be; mind readers. They are punishing a student for making a threat, when they don't really know what he was thinking at all. This 'CYA legally' bullshit is just that, bullshit.

They just can't ignore this now that another student complained about it. Chances are they had to fill out forms pertaining to this incident because of the nature of this complaint, if the kid did do something, police would have come back to them and said "look, on this day he threatened this teacher and you did nothing, why not?"

They could say that they believed the kid was just expressing frustration, and didn't think it was a threat at all. Its amazing how many people with the benefit of hindsight claim that people should have acted differently. To me such claims are pointless.

all of sudden its the administration's asses that are on the line...hell they might get sued by the union or the teacher's family for millions of dollars. This is an unlikely scenario, but schools have learned to do everything by the book.

Unfortunatly this is a side effect of our culture today, where nobody is really responsible anymore. If a kid shoots someone, its the kids fault, end of story. By blaming the administrators, you remove some of the responsibility from the person that commited a crime. Schools haven't learned to do everything by the book; they have learned to punish anyone that doesn't subscribe to the group think being instilled in children today. Any differing views are simply not tolerated.

I suppose death threats, death lists and any other "art" can be a way for kids to express themselves (what kind of kid expresses himself with a death threat?), but he better keep it private if he doesn't want to suffer the consequences.

Your logic problem is that you're starting with the basis that the icon was a death threat; since the icon wasn't meant to be seen by the teacher, it can't be a threat. Much art is offensive to some people; that doesn't make it an invalid way to express one's self, or that it shouldn't be allowed to have been created. Your line of thinking tells people (kids in this case) that they need to fear being different than everyone else, and that it is wrong not to conform. Pretty chilling lines of reasoning, considering we are supposed to be a country that emphasizes individuality.

Re:what did he expect?

[danielk1982]

The student still enjoys free speech, because the icon wasn't a threat, since it was never meant to be seen by the teacher. Intention is key here

Ok. I'll argue that this isn't the case since he put it in a public venue (IM icon) and was seen by many of his peers.

If a kid shoots someone, its the kids fault, end of story. By blaming the administrators, you remove some of the responsibility from the person that commited a crime.

We live in a very litigious society. Businesses, and local governments have to deal with this fact. People have been awarded millions for injuries easily avoided if they exercised some judgement.

Your logic problem is that you're starting with the basis that the icon was a death threat

Thats not what I'm arguing. Its actually irrelevant whether the icon is or it isn't a genuine death threat. The school had to act once the complaint was in. The action they chose was suspension, which was perhaps a bit too harsh. But you're not really arguing the severity of the punishment but whether or not the school should have punished him at all.

Your line of thinking tells people (kids in this case) that they need to fear being different than everyone else, and that it is wrong not to conform

I don't think I said that .. but OK. My school had a dress code (white shirt, black pants, tie) and you were liable for suspension if you consistently broke it...tough luck. If you're under 18, in school and living at home, your individuality is severely compromised. My sister got a second piercing in her ear at 14 (she's 30 now).. she managed to hide it from my parents for a month, and it just so happened that the day my dad saw it, was the last day she wore it. Tough luck. If you're a kid, you get no rights.

Re:what did he expect?

[apoc06]

beat me to it. theres a very clear warning that the icon that you are about to view may contain offensive imagery. anyone offended needs to take it up with themselves and that individual; not the law.

next thing you know they are gonna sue aol for giving people the ability to create icons that depict certain acts. whats next? no more "subversive" icons.

Re:what did he expect?

[andrewman327]

So the school board's reasoning is that he will be less homicidal after spending a semester on suspension? Something doesn't make sense here.

not the funniest joke

[yagu]

As this student is now learning, if this really was his idea of a joke, it was not the funniest joke ever played (for more on that, see the description of Monty Python's Funniest Joke in the World).

From the article:

The icon showed a gun pointing to a head, a bullet leaving the gun, and blood splattering from the head. It included the words "Kill Mr. VanderMolen," the name of Aaron's English teacher at Weedsport Middle School.

Freedom of speech is not absolute and is frequently determined to be more "pure" when considering speech around protest, opinion, etc. Showing an icon, with an explicit reference to killing (as an active "directive") and the teacher's name falls pretty far outside the boundaries for reasonable people, and apparently for the court of law. The article says most students laughed it off as a joke... it's difficult to see what's funny in a gun pointed at someone's head, even as a thumbnail sized icon.

One defining attribute of this student's environment is his parents' reaction to all of this:

His parents sued, claiming that the icon was protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, that the school district failed to train staff in proper threat assessment and that the school board violated state law in not following proper procedures.

WTF? I'd personally rather this student's parents on the bubble for their glib interpretation of their son's behavior. Their "defense" of their child says much about a belief and value system they must have instilled in Aaron as they raised him. Bah!

Bottom line, free speech doesn't give people the freedom to say "kill XXX". Not funny... I hope this doesn't ruin the student's future, I hope he learns from this, but ultimately I wish more parents like this would wake up and show more respect for their children by defining for them reasonable civil boundaries -- i.e., it's okay, even necessary to protest, it's not okay to intimidate and assault.

Re:not the funniest joke

[ichigo 2.0]

Bottom line, free speech doesn't give people the freedom to say "kill XXX".

Yes it does. But if something happens to X you'll be a prime suspect, so if you're going to kill someone, don't tell about it to everyone.

Re:not the funniest joke

[Overly Critical Guy]

You pretty much nailed it. A large number of people today misunderstand what Freedom of Speech actually means. It's the freedom to speak and not have the government censor you. The right does not extend to situations where someone else's rights may be endangered or limited in some way, like harassment or libel. In this case, the teacher's safety was under threat.

Re:not the funniest joke

[brogdon]

"Bottom line, free speech doesn't give people the freedom to say "kill XXX". Not funny...

I'm sorry, but that's crap and there's plenty of prior art to prove it. America has long had a tradition of satire involving mock death threats. How many British viceroys and noblemen were burned or hung in effigy within our borders? And consider our European literary heritage - are we going to ban Johnathan Swift's A Modest Proposal just because he satirically suggests breeding the children of the poor to feed the rich?

If this kid was serious in trying incite violence, or he's got guns and a blueprint of the school under his bed, that's one thing and there are laws to cover it. But if he's joking, and it would seem almost certain that he is, he absolutely has the right to do it.

Re:not the funniest joke

[nasch]

Yes it does.

No, it doesn't. Feel free to send a threatening letter to the President though, and explain your 1st Amendment rights to the Secret Service when they show up at your house.

Re:not the funniest joke

[guibaby]

Seems like everyone here over reacted. The school district should have welcomed him back to school contigent on his parents beating his ass until he was unable to sit for the rest of the semester.

Re:not the funniest joke

[WilliamSChips]

Which is why the Offspring are in jail right now.

Re:not the funniest joke

[LionKimbro]

I agree. This stuff isn't funny.

But you know, when I was 13, (which was pre-Columbine,) this sort of stuff was funny. Except only for kids.

Or was it?

My mom thought "Death Camp," a series of stories one of my friends wrote, in 7th grade, was pretty damn funny. She read each one, cover-to-cover. They were the story of a team of kids, who were imprisoned daily in a middle school, forced to eat terrible food, with mutant teachers trying to take over the kids minds. The kids amassed a ton of weapons (we were all playing Wasteland at the time, you see,) blew away the teachers, (who were shooting back, and conducting vile experiments on other students,) helped everyone escape, and then... ...took off in an SR-71 that happened to be parked on the 1/4-mile track?

At any rate: We had wonderful times coming up with the stories. We'd joke about them at lunch, and imagine how awesome it would be to finally get free of all that schooling. We'd egg on our star writer (my friend, who I shall not name, since he's actually around, writing on the Internet,) and he'd write out another episode in the story. It was 15 episodes total, I think, each around 4-6 pages long, typewritten out on computer.

We loved the stories. My mom thought they were cute.

And I really think there's something of value to the quest for freedom.

Now, come Junior year, Senior year in high school, we got the idea one lunch: "Oh! Let's re-read those old stories! Death Camp! Yah!" But, our friend told us, "No. I burned them."

"You burned them?!" "Yeah. I burned them." "But why?!"

"Because they were crap!"

And it's true. They were crap. But they were our crap, and we loved them. But, our friend just burned stuff after a year, generally; He was that sort of writer. "It's not good enough." (torch!)

Most of us are now well paid geeks. There's a stellar composer in our bunch. The author, despite graduating Pepperdine, and a number of other honors (including graduating Valadictorian from our high school) isn't doing so well; He's struggling with his English major, trying to figure out what to do with it.

But basically, we're all doing well, and we're all good people, and we're all contributing.

Now. Let me ask you. In the climate we see exhibited here today in this room (Slashdot.) In this room, of all places, ... Now, I ask you to consider where we would have been, if the world had been post-Columbine.

I can tell you where we'd be: Nowhere. It's quite plausible we wouldn't have graduated from High School. We might be busted for conspiracy to commit murder. Perhaps we'd be looked over for GATE. Our healthy anti-authoritarianism would likely become genuine fear, and have become an intense, focused, directed anti-authoritarianism.

Frankly, I don't think I'd be able to type this today.

Now, I'm feeling done, but I realize something's left to be addressed. I wish it were clear and obvious, and didn't need to be said. Unfortunately, apparently, it does: "No." "No, we never intended to actually kill our teachers." It was just a story. It was just fantasy.

It was a fantasy that we needed, in some ways. We knew that there were ideological battles taking place in the school, we knew that teachers were throwing ideas at us. We knew that we were being graded on whether or not we conformed with ideas that were not necessarily true. We knew that things were complicated. We did not have the language to describe the kinds of things we were intuited. But our brains knew that there was a conflict taking place, and so when our brains reified what we were seeing, it did it in the language of violence: A struggle to get out. A struggle to be free.

We could not wax poetic about "cognitive dissonance," we could not talk about "ontologies," or "paradox." But we felt it, we knew it, and so we wrote it.

May God bless today's kids: They're in a far deeper prison than we were.

Re:not the funniest joke

[Mr. Slippery]

Bottom line, free speech doesn't give people the freedom to say "kill XXX".

You have the right to say "kill XXX". You do not have the right to say "kill XXX" under circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to beleive that you actual intend to take steps toward killing XXX.

It's circumstances, not the mere content of the message, that make a communication a threat or not. There is a large difference between someone saying, "Someone ought to knock Mr. Slippery upside the head with a baseball bat" in a /. post, and someone walking toward me in a dark alley with a baseball bat saying the same thing.

Was this a stupid, rude, and tasteless communication deserving of some degree of censure? Sure.

Was it a threat? It was certainly close enough that it's reasonable to trigger an investigation into the circumstances; but from TFA, I cannot agree with the court's finding that "the words 'Kill Mr. VanderMolen' and the accompanying graphic cannot be viewed as anything but an unequivocal, unconditional, immediate threat of injury specific as to the person threatened". The communication was quite equivocal, conditional, and remote; it takes a stretch to declare this a "true threat".

Re:not the funniest joke

[Anonymous Coward]

I also think a large number of people fail to understand the concept of "motive" in determining a person's intent when doing something. As the artcle already says, not only did police, who are better, overall, than superintendents and principals, considering their job carries more weight. Then, add the psychological evaluation, and you have what I think many would call a false alarm by an overzealous teacher and school district.

Re:not the funniest joke

[MattW]

Freedom of speech is not absolute and is frequently determined to be more "pure" when considering speech around protest, opinion, etc. Showing an icon, with an explicit reference to killing (as an active "directive") and the teacher's name falls pretty far outside the boundaries for reasonable people, and apparently for the court of law. The article says most students laughed it off as a joke... it's difficult to see what's funny in a gun pointed at someone's head, even as a thumbnail sized icon.

The "boundaries of normal people" have no bearing on the law. "Boundaries of normal people" sounds, to me, like you need some sort of endorsement from a majority that your speech is civil, reasonable, or in some way okay. You don't. People can and do say a lot of horrendous things, but someone can stand on a street corner, talking about the virtues of Hitler, and how he almost saved the world from jews, and the vast majority of people, myself included, are going to find it absolutely detestable.

It's not difficult to see what's funny about the icon if you're a powerless 15 year old with an asshole for a teacher. Of course, it could easily be the student who is the asshole here, too; but there's an enormous power teachers have over students and their future. Not all teachers use it responsibly or judiciously, and some are rude, cruel, capricious, and probably deserve every bit of mockery they get.

The court in this case ruled that the icon constituted a threat. I think that's preposterous; it completely lacks specificity. It doesn't say "I will kill", it just says, "kill", which is more the imperative voice. As such, if it were anything, it would have to be incitement, but it lacks specificity as well. In other words, it's just a really vicious way to say, "I completely hate this person, and if they were dead, I'd do a little happy dance". Yeah, it's a terrible thing to say. But imagine if instead, his icon was the teacher, tied to a post with flames dancing all around, and it said, "Mr. X belongs in hell". I think that's about equally offensive, it just isn't phrased in a way that could be misinterpreted. In this case, I think it's clear the icon is the equivalent of someone saying in frustration, "I'd like to KILL that guy!" No one ever interprets a comment like that literally, and you have to be willfully ignorant to do so.

In any event, there are very specific things only which are not protected by free speech: threats, incitement to commit a crime, speech giving rise to immediate danger (e.g., "Fire!" in a crowded theater), as well as libel/slander/defamation. So what is this? It certainly causes no immediate danger. There are no crowds to be trampled while viewing an icon. It can't be libel/slander/defamation, because it isn't stating anything that could be interpreted as a fact. It lacks specificity to be considered an incitement. It's like saying, "You should go rob a bank" when someone says they're broke. It just doesn't count. Incitement requires some reasonable expectation someone might immediately take the person up on the request. If I'm standing in front of the White House saying, "Get out your guns. We're going in, and we're getting answers, and anyone who gets in our way, we shoot!", then I'm inciting those present (especially if they have guns) to commit a crime. I'm being specific, in that circumstance. That's not protected.

Finally, there's a threat. Here's where the court actually ruled.

I can certainly see, from the teacher's perspective, why he would WANT this to be considered a threat. I can see why a judge would want to rule it as such; because frankly, the icon is repulsive. Intuitively, you'd almost expect it to be illegal. But it can't be unless you can reasonably believe that it implies that the student is actually claiming, via the icon, that he plans to harm the teacher.

You can agree or disagree that it constitutes a threat, but lets be clear: the social acceptability of speech has nothing to do with its legality. There are very few things which are NOT protected.

Re:not the funniest joke

[91degrees]

. it's difficult to see what's funny in a gun pointed at someone's head, even as a thumbnail sized icon.

It's slapstick. Magnified and exagerated. Pain may be a lowbrow sense of humour, but a lot of people find it funny. Laurel and Hardy made a career out of it.

Re:not the funniest joke

[Sancho]

It obviously has to have some sort of artistic merit. Lots of "speech" is banned if you can't prove that it has artistic merit (some forms of pornography, for example).

The question should be whether an AIM icon can have artistic merit, and if it does, is this particular icon artistic?

Re:not the funniest joke

[epyT-R]

Freedom of speech SHOULD be absolute (along with the rest of the bill of rights). if it's not, then it's merely going to be defined by the majority group in power, rendering it useless.

This family's values are a healthy normal response to the unchecked authoritarianism of school and the government at large.

Re:not the funniest joke

[qsqueeq]

Although the students apparently viewed the icon as a joke, VanderMolen did not. He later testified that he was scared, concerned and felt sick to his stomach upon reading the message. He asked to be removed from teaching the English class because he was concerned for his safety and that of his 6-month-old child. The school principal claimed that VanderMolen appeared anxious and fearful.

What a puss. Just go punch the kid in the face. He's 15. VanderWussin.

Re:not the funniest joke

[Baloo Ursidae]

I guess we should get rid of kill(1) while we're at it, right?

Re:not the funniest joke

[Baloo Ursidae]

It's the freedom to speak and not have the government censor you.

I guess that excludes government-run public schools, huh?

Re:not the funniest joke

[WhatDoIKnow]

The article says most students laughed it off as a joke... it's difficult to see what's funny in a gun pointed at someone's head, even as a thumbnail sized icon. Oh come on, how can you say that something like this is not funny? http://www.eagleville.com/kitten-gun.jpg

Re:not the funniest joke

[McMoose]

I whole-heartedly agree: FoS does not mean that you can't be punished for what you say, it just means that you have the right to say it. I am free to say whatever I want. However, I am also required to deal with the consequences of what I say. Yeah, the kid might not have really intended to kill Mr. Whatshisbutt, but most sane people (and more than a few /.ers too) would be hard-pressed to say that this is absolutely harmless, normal behavior. -McM

Re:not the funniest joke

[Alchemar]

"Bottom line, free speech doesn't give people the freedom to say "kill XXX""
Let's break some free speech laws just for the hell of it:

Soldiers, your command is to "kill the enemy troops" guarding the bunker.

I need to "kill process 932" before my computer crashes.

We the jury "sentence the defendant to death"

We need to "kill Osama Bin Laden" for what he has done.

If you have to use a gun while defending a home invasion "shoot to kill" not mame.

The goverment has turned into a dictatorship, we need to "kill the dictator".

Your right, I don't find any of those too funny. We better ban them.

The constitution was not written to allow you to talk about sports and soap operas. It was written to defend you from your own goverment. The right given were given to be used against the goverment if needed. If you start deniging those rights bases on, "it's not funny" instead of it could be harmful to innocents then you lose those rights for the purpose it was intended.

Re:not the funniest joke

[bky1701]

The problem with that is, anything can pose a threat. Saying "Destroy the capitalist government now!" is hardly as much of a REAL threat as publishing the communist manifesto. It's only knee-jerk if you start stringing people up for a "threat" when most such threats are totally meaningless. The only real threat is ideas.

Before you start to say "any bad speech needs stopped" (that IS what you are saying) think of how you define that, lest we be stuck in the dark ages again.

Re:not the funniest joke

[Gorshkov]

you miss one very important point.

Your death camp teachers were mutants, and the stories were *obviously* fiction.

Now - if in those stories you had come up with weird and imaginative ways to off Mrs. Futzwanger, your music teacher ....... do you still think your mother would have found things quite so amusing?

Re:not the funniest joke

[Savior_on_a_Stick]

There are a number of factors that make Offspring's song protected speech.

Being successful musicians, it doesn't take much to establish artistic value.

Further, the lyrics to Kill The President seem to be more an indictment of the false logic of the "anarchists" than anything else.

Re:not the funniest joke

[Gorshkov]

Freedom of speech SHOULD be absolute (along with the rest of the bill of rights).

That statement is preposterous on it's face.

Your right to swing your arm freely SHOULD end at the tip of my nose.

All rights have limists, and they should have, because they WILL conflict with rights of other people. The only question is where those limits should be - how the balance is achieved.

Let's not forget, people - with rights, comes responsibility. I wish the hell some of the people in here would try to remember that occasionally.

Re:not the funniest joke

[Kuxman]

the problem is... the parent's are SUPPORTING their kid's actiosn by suing the school. Yeah, it's the american way.. yadda, yadda, yadda. The point is, it's obvious where this kid got his value system (and idea of "free speach" from).

Re:not the funniest joke

[guibaby]

I wish I could argue, but you couldn't be more right.

Re:not the funniest joke

[Emeye]

Well, barring obscenities (in this case, pornography), anything which does not constitute a substantial diruption of the educational process is not able to be censored by the school. This qualifies as free speech, but for the fact that it could be deemed as intimidation or harassment.

Re:not the funniest joke

[thatguywhoiam]

May God bless today's kids: They're in a far deeper prison than we were.

That was a great post; thanks for that. I had a very similar reaction. I wrote stories in high school with my friends in a similar manner - hell, we had illustrated comics depicting all sorts of crazy behaviour. And all I can think is, I never, ever would have made it out of high school in today's climate. (and for the record, I'm a contributing member of society, not a sociopath).

Re:not the funniest joke

[glitch0]

Yeah... Not really. You would probably be where you are today, because the worst punishment you would see would be a suspension. As someone who's still in highschool, I can tell you that most teachers would be able to tell that story is fiction and wouldn't do a thing about it. My mother's an elementary school principal and I assure you that things like what you wrote are still around. But you have to have that distinction of fiction versus non-fiction, and most people can reasonably tell the difference.

You see, your teachers were mutants, of course it's ok to kill them because it's not a likely scenario. It hasn't happened before and people aren't scared of it. No one actually even thinks it's possible for your teachers to turn into mutants. But if you were writing about shooting up the school and the story wasn't blatantly fiction then that's something people are scared of. It has happened before and people have heard of it. They see it on the news in one isolated incident and assume the entire world is like that, including their school. The school officials have to look out for it and make sure it doesn't happen because it's their job.

Keep in mind that a suspension isn't that big of a deal anymore. Well a semester long one is, but that's a very exquisite example. You would most likely see a couple of days or a week tops in a public school, which isn't that huge on a record. I mean come on, they give suspensions out like candy nowadays. At my highschool if you're late 3 times in a semester you get suspended for a day.

Let's try and be realistic. You wouldn't be busted for "conspiracy to commit murder" or anything. Did you even read the article? The cops looked into this (which was a kid with an icon stating he was going to kill a specific teacher, a real plausable threat to school officials) and found that the kid wasn't a threat at all and knew it was a joke.

Re:not the funniest joke

[alphamugwump]

I'm sorry, wanting to kill your english teacher IS absolutely harmless, normal behavior. Who DOESN'T have a special someone in their life who likes to give them hell? Making an animation about it is just plain dumb, though. And the school was within their rights to kick the kid out; they can kick out whoever they want. However, that doesn't mean that the whole affair wasn't a big round of administrative chest-thumping.

Re:not the funniest joke

[ichigo 2.0]

As long as I don't get thrown into jail for it, it's still freedom of speech. Like I said, if you threaten to kill someone, and that person ends up dead then you would be a prime suspect. As long as the SS would only show up at my house to investigate a bit, then it would still be freedom of speech. If I would get punished for the letter, then it really isn't freedom of speech.

Re:not the funniest joke

[Kreigaffe]

"Bottom line, free speech doesn't give people the freedom to say "kill XXX". "

Um. Yes it does.

Watch.

KILL WHITEY!

Re:not the funniest joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Bottom line, free speech doesn't give people the freedom to say "kill XXX".

Absolutely false. Free speech means that you have the right to say "kill XXX", or "[ethnic group] are [expletive]", or even "The theatre is burning down!". It may be that, when our laws prohibit such speech, they're really making society better - but we shouldn't delude ourselves that we're not gradually restricting free speech.

Re:not the funniest joke

[nasch]

As long as the SS would only show up at my house to investigate a bit, then it would still be freedom of speech. If I would get punished for the letter, then it really isn't freedom of speech.

Being hassled by law enforcement IS punishment, and makes the speech NOT free in my book. "You can say anything you want and we won't do anything except show up at your door with guns to ask you questions about it." Not free speech. Now I'm saying that making threats is in fact not protected speech. That's a factual position and I'll see if I can find something to back it up.

Re:not the funniest joke

[nasch]

Lots of "speech" is banned if you can't prove that it has artistic merit (some forms of pornography, for example).

You're saying pornography is by default banned in the US unless it can be proven to have artistic merit? That smells like something that fell out of the back end of a male bovine. I doubt you can back up that position.

Re:not the funniest joke

[Sancho]

Only "dangerous" speech has to have artistic merit. Threatening speech counts. Pornography counts (if pornography has no artistic merit, it is considered obscenity).

Here's a Wiki article that discusses the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_th e_United_States_Constitution

I shall quote:

The federal government and the states have long been permitted to restrict obscene or pornographic speech. While obscene speech generally has no protection under the First Amendment, pornography is subject to little regulation. The exact definition of obscenity and pornography, however, has changed over time.


So my first mistake was, perhaps, using the words "obscenity" and "pornography" almost interchangeably (in fact, I did not mention obscenity at all). It's a tricky situation because the line is extremely fuzzy.


Under the Miller test, a work is obscene if it would be found appealing to the prurient interest by an average person applying contemporary community standards, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.


Here we see that an expression (which I called pornography earlier) may be considered an obscenity with the primary basis being whether there is some artistic value (or merit).

So my overall flaw was in the wording, and I would consider that semantics. If it is deemed obscene by community standards, a work is no longer pornography, but obscenity, which has almost no protection under the 1st amendment, and can thus be banned. Note that this only affects the expression of the "speech" and not the possession. It may be illegal to create or distribute the obscenity, but it is not legal to possess it. Child pornography falls under different laws and restrictions, and is of course illegal to possess.

Going back to the original reason for the discussion: the song which asks people to "Kill $X" has to have artistic merit. Telling someone to kill another human being probably has no artistic merit, and I suspect that doing so will get you arrested faster than that bovine you mentioned can sneeze. Creating an artistic work which contains the command "kill $X" is protected, and if a person was arrested (and not sent to Gitmo over it) then they would probably have the case dismissed outright if the judge has even a modicum of common sense. You might even be able to sue for false arrest afterwards.

Back the Judge?

[ackthpt]

Back the Judge?

Ok, most law is based upon common sense. You don't steal my car, I don't shoot you, we all get along sort of thing. Here we have parents backing up their child's poor taste chat icon. Seriously. There's the 1st Amendment, or whatever passes for guarantees of Free Speech in other countries, but where is this a political critique of the institutions of government? That's what the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution is there to protect. This is clearly a child behaving badly and parents backing him up. There's seriously something f**ked in the head with these people.

I'm behind the judge in this one. I'd even consider remanding the child to protective services as these parents are seriously a threat when they think this is find behaviour worthy of defending in court.

Re:Back the Judge?

[alshithead]

I agree with you and the judge. If I had done something like this you can bet my parents would have made me VERY unhappy for a long time. If I had a legitimate gripe with someone and filed a complaint following whatever established procedures they would have backed me all the way. Civilized people don't suggest that a teacher they dislike should be killed.

Re:Back the Judge?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is suprising the courts took this seriously. He is just a kid and it is on his personal computer.
If you think he is serious then prosecute him else let him go. Don't screw his studies?

Re:Back the Judge?

[voice_of_all_reason]

where is this a political critique of the institutions of government? That's what the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution is there to protect

O rly?

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."

Doesn't say anything about not abridging political speech. It says all speech. Of course in practice, speech which falls in the libel or threat category gets you punished. I'm just saying those laws are unconstitutional as the first amendment is written.

Re:Back the Judge?

[Bones3D_mac]

So, while we're at it, can we charge this kid with conspiracy to commit murder, since we're wasting the court's time with this nonsense?

Re:Back the Judge?

[PB_TPU_40]

Good luck remanding him to protective services. This happend in 2001 and he was 15, 5 years later makes him 20.

Re:Back the Judge?

[drinkypoo]

Seriously. There's the 1st Amendment, or whatever passes for guarantees of Free Speech in other countries, but where is this a political critique of the institutions of government?

Given the level of sophistication of the average teenager, I'd say that's a fairly eloquent denounciation of the school system.

Speech shouldn't be any less free if it's clumsy.

If English allows you to say "Kill your Television" even though it's something that isn't alive, why shouldn't it allow you to say "Kill your Teacher" if you don't literally mean "kill"? If I say "fuck you" to someone, it doesn't mean I intend to bone them.

Re:Back the Judge?

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

I don't think it's the childs actions they are defending, but more the punishment that didn't fit the crime.

Yeah he did draw and distribute a bad picture. So did many famous artists. I'm suspecting he was angry about a poor test grade or something... took his aggression out on photoshop, and set as an IM ICON. Some friends of his thought it was cool and requested it, and so it was spread...

Yeah, the kid is stupid. Yes he should have gotten suspended. A week or two tops. Yes he better be grounded for six months. No Myspace for a year. No WOW, Q4, etc... And most importantly lets not forget the parents should be more active in their childs online activities...

However, remember that suspending a student for a sememster is dificult on the parents too. Now they have a child, who is angry he is'nt with his friends, home from school doing god knows what when mom & dad are at work. They now have to hire a tutor, or a taxi, or worse, they have to quit a job so they can shuttle him to a new school for four months. My parents would be OUTRAGED at a 6 month suspension for something I did at home.

Again though, the kid should be diciplined. Just not out of school for an entire semester.
Secondly a whole semester out of school gives the kid less of a chance to correct his behavior and move on. He'll become forever angry at the system, and will be behind the other students, possibly too far to catch up. He'll miss out on a fair portion of socializing with real people and probably end up spending more time online.

Re:Back the Judge?

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

nice... I like that.

I don't intend to have everyone shooting their television either, but dropping it in a nice warm bath would be perfectly O.K. with me... 8')

Re:Back the Judge?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Clear and present danger" is one of the limiting factors of the First Amendment...

Re:Back the Judge?

[AvitarX]

Libel is a civil and not a criminal matter. There is not AFAIK a law prohibiting it.

Re:Back the Judge?

[voice_of_all_reason]

I did not know that. Thanks for teaching me something today!

Re:Back the Judge?

[Sancho]

Civil matters are still based on laws which are on the books.

Re:Back the Judge?

[AvitarX]

Well I'm a douche and hope I am modded accordingly.

I thought things like that were more bound in case law and practice than on firm law. Of course the fact that the word law is in case law kind of invalidates that argument too.

Re:Back the Judge?

[Sancho]

It's an easy mistake to make, since most of the time, people don't care about civil law. A great deal of it is common sense. In fact, I made the same mistake once, and had someone actually point me to a law on the books which allowed only for civil penalties but not criminal punishment. I wish I could find a good example for you, but my cursory search didn't turn up anything handy.

Re:Back the Judge?

[Anonymous Coward]

My parents would be pretty pissed at me too, and certainly not think it was appropriate behavior. I would also bet that they would back me in court. NO it's not a nice thing to do, it's horrible awful, and if you believe that word has any meaning, wrong. But laws aren't in existance to maintain some sort of comfort level for us, they are there to protect our freedoms, and that is all. If you don't like what someone's doing, take it up with them. Not every little social squable has to be covered under some legislation. It's nice when people are civil, the law is there only to protect liberties though, not make cave men into princes who hold up their pinky while drinking.

I.E. If it's not an obvious and grave threat, live with it. You can't seriously tell me that you've never said "I wouldn't mind if he would just drop dead" or something equivelent. We've all said, or at least thaught it at some point. He just happened to be artistic enough to put it into an Icon. A threat is directed at a person. If I paint, "mr X should drop dead" somewhere in france, and he lives in california, few people would call this a threat. Well, did the student ever IM this teacher with the image? No, it was handed over by a fellow student. It's not a threat if it wasn't directed to the teacher in some intentional manner. Without that it was merely a comment, if a horribly out of taste one.

Re:Back the Judge?

[Fallingcow]

Yeah, the kid is stupid. Yes he should have gotten suspended. A week or two tops.

Shit, unless things have changed A LOT, that was about the punishment for a first-offense case of ACTUALLY beating the hell out of someone (a student, admittedly, not a teacher), not just threatening violence. It'd probably take three ass-beatings to get the student kicked out for a whole semester (or maybe a year, they tended to take it VERY seriously if you manage to perform assault more than twice in a single semester... or at least, so they said; I don't recall ever seeing that happen)

A bad-taste photoshop job that may or may not be an actual threat of serious harm (though I'm going with "probably not") should have similar punishment.

Re:Back the Judge?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully, his parents weren't defending his behavior and were simply fighting the suspension. If a friend (or an acquaintence) of my child saw that icon and thought it was a serious threat, I hope that he or she would come to me and not the school! I can then handle the situation as I see fit. When the school receives such a notice, I hope that they contact me that I can handle the situation as I see fit. Suspension is punishment. He should be given counseling.

Re:Back the Judge?

[strikethree]

I'd even consider remanding the child to protective services as these parents are seriously a threat when they think this is find behaviour worthy of defending in court.

You scare me. You would think about teearing apart a family over a fucking icon? Are you insane? I realize that you are basing your suggestion off of the implication of the parents supporting their childs behaviour when that behaviour seems to be wrong... but really. Don't you think you are being just a tad bit extreme here?

strike

LOL INTERNET

[linvir]

It's a witch hunt, in this post-Columbine world! Where's Jon Katz when you need him in this post-Columbine world?

But seriously, saying that the icon was "on his home computer" is like saying that prank calls are okay because "what I say in the privacy of my own home is my business".

Re:LOL INTERNET

[bunions]

Where's Jon Katz

It's the Return of the Question Nobody Wants Answered!

on topic: fuck that kid, he should get suspension, and instead of trying to weasel out of a perfectly legitimate suspension, those parents should be asking themselves why their boy is such a little shithead.

Re:LOL INTERNET

[geekoid]

it's not like that at all.

It's like calling one person to talking about pulling a prank on someone else.

wait, it's not like that at all either.
It's like posting a discussion of a prank on a public real world bullitent board, then the person who the prank talks about finding out.

Re:LOL INTERNET

[tibike77]

IMHO, the final decision was right, but for all the wrong reasons.

It was obviously a joke (rather said a pathetic attempt of a joke), as most colleagues of this kid and even the POLICE initially considered, and as further investigations proved. Bottom line, it was NOT a threat, and was not perceived as a threat by anybody who has even just some minimal background information.
Then, after a while (3 weeks) one of the kids in his class (probably when just having been pissed off by this Aron character) brings the issue to the teacher's attention (who probably had some grudge already with the kid) and OVERREACTS (you just can't put it any other way) and instead of just bringing the issue as soon as possible to the people in charge he goes on and makes a big mess out of it.

Now that's about all for excuses so far, and all that's "the wrong reasons".
I said though, it was afterall the right decision.

First of all, even as a joke, this is a bit too cruel. You can blame the parents, the aquaintainces, the television, the government... heck, scapegoats for all behaviour problems seem to be awfully abundant these days.
Heck, blame it on veideo games if you want to, that seems awfully populat these days.
Fact still remains, this kid should have known better and should have NOT had such a status icon in the first place.

Second, the teacher (given what you'd expect as "normal") might have overreacted, but can you really blame him ?
How in the world should he know that this kid doesn't ACTUALLY have access to a weapon, and that the kid might actually be pondering to kill him ?
In a society that blames everything except the parents for kids killing kids and probably teachers too if they could, and with such horror stories seemingly happening more often as time goes by, you'd find it hard to blame the less informed (and probably even misinformed) teacher for making such a big deal out of it.

So, if you'd ask me who's to blame and who should be punished... well:
- the teacher should get a reprimand and some penality for skipping "proper procedure" and creating panic
- the child should NOT get a suspension, but instead some community service and/or some mandatory civility seminaries (or whatnot)
- the parents should be warned about how they raise their child and failure to teach him the difference between appropriate and inappropriate, and probably be forced to pay some fines to enable their kid's continuing education

Everybody involved funked up pretty badly.
And I suppose the judge's ruling (more precisely, the reasons given) was the only one he could make "that was legal" given the (even more severely funked up) judicial system.

But hey, that's just my oppinion, what do I know, I'm not an American and I would just administer a freaking good butt-spanking with a belt to this kid and make him wash all dishes for months ;)

Re:LOL INTERNET

[Anonymous Coward]

But hey, that's just my oppinion, what do I know, I'm not an American and I would just administer a freaking good butt-spanking with a belt to this kid and make him wash all dishes for months

Are you advocating domestic violence against a child on a public message board?

It's a very good thing you are not an American; Otherwise, you might have to be very careful about your response.

Frankly, I don't think what you said was very funny, and I don't think you meant it as a joke, either.

Re:LOL INTERNET

[drinkypoo]

It's a witch hunt, in this post-Columbine world! Where's Jon Katz when you need him in this post-Columbine world?

I figure that the post-9/11 world was just too much for him.

Re:LOL INTERNET

[vistic]

Where is "Don't Ruin a Kid's Life for Being a Stupid Kid" Panda when you need him?

Re:LOL INTERNET

[tibike77]

For USAmericans, physical violence (REGARDLESS of intensity, type and scope) towards your own children seems to be considered a "bad thing" and labeled as "child abuse".

Let me tell you a word or two about the difference between a beating and education: it EXISTS.

I was brought up that way, make a huge blunder even when advised against it, depending on how you behave afterwards (defiant, either not admitting, not realising or just not showing guilt and remorse), a bit of pain inflicted on you (without hate, and without permanent damage) is the quickest and surest way to ensure compliance.
You don't have to HURT the child to make him corelate the pain he feels with the wrong things he did, and you don't have to hate your child to do it... heck, it's even harder to do it in the first place if you love him, but sometimes it is a perfectly appropriate way of administering punishment.

I never hated my parents when I received a spanking from them, and I did receive my fair share as a child.
I just resented myself for doing the "bad stuff" or regretted the circumstances that lead up to me doing it.
I never killed (nor planned on killing) anybody in my entire life, I don't anger easily, I basically don't have many psychological issues. Neither does my sister (2 years younder).

However, my little brother (8 years younger) somehow always managed to almost always get away without any form of corporal punishment (not because he didn't deserve it, but because he was the smallest child, and in comparison to what we other two were doing, it never seemed warranted).
Guess what... he's a very irritable person, he snaps at basically everybody for almost anything that bothers him, he's obscene and disrespectfull, he's in other words completely different in temper from his older siblings.
Are those two things linked ? Is actually the "do not lay a hand on your child" policy wrong as a concept ?
I could not certainly say that one.
But I can say with 100% certainty, INFLICTING PAIN ON A CHILD IS NOT NECESSARILY CHILD ABUSE, and in some cases, if done responsably, it can do more good than harm.

IMHO, this whole "child abuse" confusion between beating your child and just plain and simple corporal punishment (as behavioural education tool) is regrettable.

Re:LOL INTERNET

[Anonymous Coward]

He was killed in a motorcycle accident. And unfortunately, due to his unwillingness to procreate, no heir was left to take up the family tradition. Now humanity is faced with the unenviable task of anthropomorphising some other animal to take his place. Don't these ungrateful animals realise just how expensive running an anthropomorphisation tank is?

Re:LOL INTERNET

[Triv]

It was a joke, but to answer the question:

Jon Katz is in upstate New York writing books about dogs. What, you don't believe me?

Seems like poetic justice to me, but I can't quite figure out why.

triv

Re:LOL INTERNET

[Anonymous Coward]

on topic: fuck that kid

If his icon was a death threat then I don't think there's any doubt you just threatened sexual molestation of a minor. Hopefully you'll have the sense to turn yourself over to the police.

Re:LOL INTERNET

[bunions]

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA

oh, John Katz.

I guess it all makes sense. If I was John Katz, I wouldn't want to be around anyone who could read either.

Re:LOL INTERNET

[vistic]

Wow, that made no sense to me at all until I actually read what I wrote, since I had forgotten already. Haha.

Um... ok

[Bones3D_mac]

A death threat? It's not like the kid tied it to a rock and threw it into the teachers house though a window or something.

Children do stupid things like this all the time. What we have here is just a prime example of a post-columbine overreaction. If something is uttered by a child, it must be literally true... right?

Re:Um... ok

[jt2377]

columbine is what happened when there is no overreaction at all. everyone think those kids are fine then one day they bring Hell with 'em then you get bus load of parents suing school for not protecting, execuse me, not overreacting. how about not blaming everything on school/teacher? how about teach your own god damn kids what's right or wrong and what's funny and not funny.

Re:Um... ok

[benjamin264]

This coming from the guy that is making everyone look at his bone...

Re:Um... ok

[Morinaga]

I think you're way off base to say "Children do stupid things like this all the time". Kids cuss, they sneak liquor out of their parents stash, they try their first smokes, they might even experiment with sex or practice vandalism. ALL of these things have consequences, some directly by the various things they experiment with.

If my son ever did anything like this he'd lose his recreational computer privledges for a very long time, he'd personally and publically apologize to the teacher. In the end, his hate and frustration for that teacher would be nothing compared to the contempt he'd have for me when I'm done with him.

Re:Um... ok

[Bones3D_mac]

Ok, let's look at another example... suspected "terrorists" being held captive without trial for several years. Even though these people may be innocent, won't being unfairly punished for a potential crime eventually drive these very people to lash out at those who screwed them over once they are released? And, if they did, would it justify their previous incarceration, despite the fact they never actually committed the crime they were being held for until now?

This kid created this icon as an expression of opinion. Despite the lack of good taste, is punishing someone for expressing opinion justified under the pretense that they may act out by simply having the said opinion in question?

Let's say this kid eventually does turn around and actually "kills" this teacher. Who's fault is it? Would it be those who punished him unjustly for expressing his opinion (including the teacher himself), driving him to lash out in response to his oppression? Would it be the parents, who supported their child's right to express an opinion, despite of its lack of popularity with those who disagree with it?

Hell, for that matter, why don't we just bypass all of it and go where the hotbutton of the day is... videogames. Yeah... the videogames made him do it... now pay up.

Re:Um... ok

[kid_wonder]

"If my son ever did anything like this he'd lose his recreational computer privledges for a very long time,"

Just give him spelling lessons so he doesn't embarass himself on /. like his old man

Re:Um... ok

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

Hell, for that matter, why don't we just bypass all of it and go where the hotbutton of the day is... videogames. Yeah... the videogames made him do it... now pay up.

Thats it, I am going to kill you.

Meet me on Rexxar in front of Ironforge. Duel ready.
High noon /sarcasm

I completly agree with you up till the end.

Let's say this kid eventually does turn around and actually "kills" this teacher. Who's fault is it? Would it be those who punished him unjustly for expressing his opinion (including the teacher himself), driving him to lash out in response to his oppression? Would it be the parents, who supported their child's right to express an opinion, despite of its lack of popularity with those who disagree with it?

If the kid kills the teacher, it's the teachers fault. Plain and simple. He should have strafed to one side, or the other after activating "bullet time"

Seriously though. You have to blame the child for his or her own actions. In this case he needs to be punished. But he does not need to have a suspension term of a semester. Your going to give a kid a very long summer for drawing a picture... however violent it might be.

What if he modeled it all and made a movie about it then what?

well, I guess then you would blame it on the video games in that case huh... nvm

Re:Um... ok

[kristinester]

I think the problem with that argument is that it is focusing on placing blame on others. Sadly this is now a staple of modern society. There's a car commercial out where everyone is shouting out why they have certain cars, i.e. the man in the sports car, "I'm overcompensating for my shortcomings", and other people yelling, "because my Daddy doesn't love me" etc. etc. etc. That is a perfect example of just how ingrained this concept is in society.

No one has any sense of accountability. Whether it's terrorists killing people, the underage myspace sluts who sue myspace, or the people who blame all their actions and shortcomings on the failings of their parents. If this kid does end up going on a killing rampage, it's his fault. It's not the schools fault. It's not the parents fault. It's not videogames and it's not Marilyn Manson.

Perhaps the kid is psychologically unstable, perhaps some blame could be placed on the parents or the school for not recommending a psychiatric evaluation, or even the psychiatrist if he/she did not see a risk. But that type of blame can only go so far. No one is psychic. No one can see the future. No one should be held accountable for not knowing what is going to happen in those types of situations.

If the child decided to do something after the suspension, or during the suspension even, it would surely be premeditated. His fault. No one elses.

Then there is the argument about the parents being horrible for supporting their child and embarking on this lawsuit. Frankly, considering how competitive colleges are, if they see that he was kicked out of school for a semester, they probably won't take him. Which means community college and living at home for the kid. The kid sounds like he is probably a giant pain in the ass, so do you really blame the parents for wanting to get the kid out of their hair quicker?

Re:Um... ok

[dan828]

FTFA, text of the judge's decision: "It is well-established that lack of intention or ability to carry out a threat is not relevant." So, from a legal standpoint, just making the threat was enough and the school had to take it seriously, not because law enforcement or a psycologist's opinions about it, but because the teacher took it seriously. They'd have left the school district open to litigation if they had just ignored it.

Re:Um... ok

[Bones3D_mac]

Look, my point is that the school and the teacher acted without actually investigating the situation. How difficult is it to request the kid be psychologically evaluated before considering him a threat. The "one size fits all" approach to handling situations like this probably creates more problems than they actually solve.

Re:Um... ok

[Brandybuck]

Children do stupid things like this all the time.

When I was a child I did stupid things. And I got suspended from school for them too!

Re:Um... ok

[kristinester]

I agree completely. I did go a little off point there with my rant, sorry. It's Zero Tolerance. Whether it's the schools or free speech outside of schools... they aren't taking any chances. Paranoia is taking over reason.

Re:Um... ok

[Gorshkov]

Look, my point is that the school and the teacher acted without actually investigating the situation. How difficult is it to request the kid be psychologically evaluated before considering him a threat. The "one size fits all" approach to handling situations like this probably creates more problems than they actually solve.

OK - now you have me confused.

Are you saying that only stable, or only UNstable kids can threaten teachers and be held accountable for it?

The kid threatned a teacher, he got suspended for it. He needs to suck it up and deal.

Re:Um... ok

[drsquare]

Why should a teacher be forced to teach someone who wants to kill him?

Re:Um... ok

[Morinaga]

I don't think embarass means what you think it means.

For example, I don't believe you're actually embarassed about not using punctuation.

Circulated

[Grrr]

From TFA -

"Aaron's home computer sported this icon for about three weeks, until another student tipped off VanderMolen."

And from the quoted opinion:

"...Aaron circulated it among classmates for three weeks"

Google News returns only one result for the names of the teacher and school (at the time of this post)...

<grrr />

Re:Circulated

[Anonymous Coward]

So you regularly find your name, sceenname, and IM icon on google do you? And Google news no less? Are you Bill Gates?

The "If it's not on google it doesn't exist" school of thought is a very silly one.

Re:Circulated

[Anonymous Coward]

The "If it's not on google it doesn't exist" school of thought is a very silly one.

I'm getting sick of this attitude on Slashdot. If you don't believe in Google yourself then that's fine but that doesn't mean you have to arrogantly dismiss the religious beliefs of the rest of us.

FoS isn't the issue here

[ditoa]

The way I understand FoS is that it protects your rights to say something against your government, etc. It doesn't mean you can say whatever the hell you want. Personally I think the kid is old enough to know better, what he didn't wasn't acceptable. Whether it was threatening I don't know however his FoS was not effected in any way.

Re:FoS isn't the issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

The way I understand FoS is that it protects your rights to say something against your government, etc.

Well, it protects your rights to say things the government doesn't want you saying (regardless of whether they are "against your government") because without that protection the government is powerful enough to have you killed (that is, impose the death penalty for prohibited speech).

Having said that, the motivation for free speech is much more general: that it's good to consider (and have available) diverse viewpoints. In fact, even in the relatively conservative USA, free speech extends to being able to say that a corporation is polluting the groundwater (assuming that it is true) without the corporation being able to impose such severe consequences that such speech would be stifled.

Re:FoS isn't the issue here

[voice_of_all_reason]

It doesn't mean you can say whatever the hell you want

Actually, that's exactly what it means. Again:

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."

And of course, the 14th amendment has been interpreted to apply the Bill of Rights to the states as well. Since the first amendment has never been altered, any state laws to the contrary are unconstitutional.

Re:FoS isn't the issue here

[DarkVader]

Thank you!!!

I don't understand where people here keep coming up with all these limits to the right to free speech, when they aren't there in the constitution.

Someone with mod points, please mod parent up as informative!

Re:FoS isn't the issue here

[Mr. Slippery]

The way I understand FoS is that it protects your rights to say something against your government, etc. It doesn't mean you can say whatever the hell you want.

How in the world do people confuse "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" into "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of political speech, or of the press if the subject is the government?"

Amendment I does indeed protect your right to say whatever the hell you want. The only legitimate restrictions are on time, place, and manner, such that your communciation does not convey or cause a threat to others. You can say "I'm going to kill Mr Slippery!" if the circumstances do not induce a reasonable person to believe you're going to try; you can indeed yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre if the circumstances do not pose a threat to the safety of others.

Re:FoS isn't the issue here

[Sancho]

Freedom of speech is a tricky thing. The intent--that is, the very reason it was put into the Bill of Rights--was indeed so that people could be critical of the government without fear of government repercussion. But that's not how it's worded and that's not how years of court rulings interpret it.

Freedom of speech has grown to encompass any form of artistic expression. This includes pictures, imagery, and music in addition to traditional forms of speech, both written and verbal. It is protected precisely because there are things some people might not want to hear you say, yet their rights shouldn't trump yours. Freedom of speech was key in allowing some forms of music (specifically "rock and roll") to survive when some cities and towns banned it from their radios and record stores. Certainly this form of music is not speech against the government, however contrary to your claim, it was deemed protected speech and had to be allowed to exist.

There are still some forms of "speech" which are outlawed. Obscenities are illegal in many places. Copyright infringement breaks other laws. Libel and slander, untruths which can damage a person's character, are illegal because they infringe of the rights of another person. And death threats are illegal for much the same reason. All of these exceptions to Freedom of Speech have at least a little merit, though right now there efforts to curb legitimate speech--without any sort of merit at all. I am, of course, referring to flag burning, which is clearly a statement about the government and which is being fought against by this very government. Those in power do not appear to think that freedom of speech should cover this particular criticism of the government--despite your assertion that FoS protects that specific right.

All-in-all, it's murky and one of the most important rights we possess. We must not allow Freedom of Speech to be taken from us, or we lose any and all ability to govern ourselves.

Re:FoS isn't the issue here

[Gorshkov]

You can say "I'm going to kill Mr Slippery!" if the circumstances do not induce a reasonable person to believe you're going to try;

Ok - again, maybe it's just me, isn't that basically what the judge said - that it WAS reasonable for the teacher to consider it a valid threat?

Re:FoS isn't the issue here

[Mr. Slippery]

isn't that basically what the judge said - that it WAS reasonable for the teacher to consider it a valid threat?

According to TFA, the court did find that "the words 'Kill Mr. VanderMolen' and the accompanying graphic cannot be viewed as anything but an unequivocal, unconditional, immediate threat of injury specific as to the person threatened".

As far as I can see from the details given, the communication was stupid, rude, and tasteless, but also equivocal, conditional, and remote, and it's a marked stretch to declare this a "true threat". Any teacher who thinks students don't talk casually and jokingly about killing teachers, is detached from reality.

When I was in elementary school back in the idyllic 1970s, before Columbine, before violent videogames, before gangsta rap, etc., we had a little song: "Glory, glory hallelujah / Teacher hit me with ruler / Shot her with my little .44 / Now my teacher ain't a teacher any more."

Or how about, "On top of Old Smoky / All covered in blood / I shot my poor teacher / With a .44 gun / I went to her funeral / I went to her grave / Some people threw flowers / I threw a grenade".

Of course the names of our teachers could be substituted as appropriate (if it scanned).

Not to mention "Marijuana, marijuana / LSD, LSD / Scientists make it / Teachers take it / Why can't we, why can't we?"

I suppose any kid singing these now, would promptly be arrested and committed to a state institution for violent juvenile drug addicts.

Re:FoS isn't the issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes that is how I understand it. However regarding the "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." I am not sure if I really understand this. What about slander? That restricts your freedom of speech as what you are saying is lies and so it is restricted. btw I am from the UK so please forgive me if I do not totally understand how it works in the US.

Sounds about right

[Wind_Walker]

I'm not sure why this is even an issue. A student made an icon of a bullet to the head, with the phrase "Kill Mr. VanderMolen" on it. Whether it was intended as a joke or not, it's still a threat - just like those signs you see at the airport warning you not to joke about a bomb in your suitcase. Free speech does not include the right to threaten other people.

Sounds like the court and the school district got this one right. Not sure what the controversy is.

Re:Sounds about right

[Shadow Wrought]

That plus minors do not have the same Constitutional rights as adults and the fact that Public Schools are not the same as a Government Agency enforcing such rules against the general populace. Schools do have the authority to enforce whatever standards they decide are appropriate.

Re:Sounds about right

[Anonymous Coward]

A) Hes fucking 15. Kids do dumb shit. Expelling the kid so he cant go to school isnt going to help, and hitting him with a lawsuit (read: his parents) isn't going to help either. And believe it or not, but not every kid is a psychokiller.

B) Its just a fucking icon. If he hung it as a poster in the middle of the school, OK maybe. If he had threatened the teacher to his face, OK. If he sent actual threats to the teacher in any way, OK. A stupid little icon between him and his friends? Big fuck deal.

C) Why the fuck is threatening illegal anyway? If because of other circumstances it could legitimatly cause people to be afraid for their life or their family, maybe. But do you honestly believe for a second that this teacher, upon hearing that one of his student had an AIM icon that said "Kill teachername" he wet himself in terror? Or do you think he laughed and said "Student name is such a dumbass". Theres no possible damages there, theres no crime. If it was intended as a joke it definatly shouldnt be illegal, and even its was meant in serious anger, unless someone actually pulls a gun out it shouldnt be a crime. Its all just expression, no matter how stupid or tasteless.

D) Freedom of Speech means freedom from the government stopping protests and so forth. Exactly! The public school systems are a part of the government, and they should be held to same standards. If a private business owner fires you because of that, so what? Its private. But school principals need to be held to the same constitutional limits as policemen and DAs when it comes to discipline.

Re:Sounds about right

[drinkypoo]

That plus minors do not have the same Constitutional rights as adults

The first amendment doesn't say you have protection unless you're a minor. Either it's a basic human right (hence its position at the top of the bill of rights, which are supposed to apply to all humans equally) or it isn't. Pick one.

and the fact that Public Schools are not the same as a Government Agency enforcing such rules against the general populace.

Uh, yes they are. There is no difference whatsoever. Actually, there is one different; persons under the age of 18 who have not graduated high school are legally compelled to be there. Adults aren't required to be anywhere in particular unless they've done something wrong. By forcing children to be in school, we're treating them like criminals, even down (in some cases) to physically fencing the school so they can't get out. I realize we're trying to ensure our future, but you know the saying - you can lead a whore to Vasser, but you can't make her think.

Not that I think hookers are necessarily stupid, mind you.

Schools do have the authority to enforce whatever standards they decide are appropriate.

That's nice, but this has nothing whatsofuckingever to do with school. FTFA:

What: A student at Weedsport Middle School sues after being suspended for a semester for having an allegedly "threatening" instant-message icon on his home computer.

and

Aaron's home computer sported this icon for about three weeks, until another student tipped off VanderMolen.

This had nothing to do with school. A school has no right to regulate what a student does when they're not at school unless it actually has some kind of impact at school.

The icon didn't say "I will kill mr. cockgobbler", it said "kill mr. cockgobbler". It's an imperative, not a plan. And since it's something stupid, like a forum icon or IM icon or WTFever it was, it's pretty clear that it wasn't even a serious imperative, let alone a threat. Therefore, he didn't break the school's policies - clearly the cops didn't think it was a threat. They're the "experts", if they don't think it's a threat (even a psychologist agreed) then what the hell does the school know? Leave the psychoanalysis to those who know something.

Meanwhile, the judge is clearly an idiot asshole:

"There is no merit to plaintiffs' assertion that questions of fact exist due to the conclusions of the Sheriff's Department and Dr. Lesswing that Aaron did not pose an actual threat and did not intend to carry out the threat. It is well-established that lack of intention or ability to carry out a threat is not relevant.

Uhhh... Whether there is intent or ability to carry out a threat is irrelevant, but whether it was intended as a threat or not is, and the Sherriff's Department (and Dr. Lesswing, ostensibly the head shrinker) said that he did not pose an actual threat. If we look in the dictionary we can easily find this: "To put forward; present: pose a threat." In other words, in the opinions of those who should, in that court, be considered experts, no threat was made - by the judge's own admission! So where does the question of whether he can/intends to carry it out even come into this? He didn't even MAKE a threat!

This case is pure bullshit. This judge should be flayed in the quad.

Re:Sounds about right

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech does not include the right to threaten other people. Sounds like the court and the school district got this one right. Not sure what the controversy is.

By the standards of American media discourse there are actually some subtle issues here.

Suppose I go into a bank and say "Give me all you money or I will shoot you!" Clearly robbing banks is not legal even though speech is used in committing the crime.

On the other hand, if I write a opinion piece in the local newspaper saying that Osama Bin Laden should be killed for his role in 9/11 then that should not be suppressed because it constitutes a "threat". That is, even though my opinion piece might reasonably lead Osama Bin Laden to believe that I would kill him if I had the opportunity, I should still be allowed to express that opinion.

Similarly, if I write an opinion piece arguing that Bush has committed war crimes and that it is my duty as an American to assassinate him then it is not clear that this should be prohibited either (or that I should be punished by the government for expressing such a point of view).

Then we come to the question of an ambiguous statement, "Kill Mr. Vandermolen", by a student against a teacher. The student didn't actually say to Mr. VanderMolen "Give me all your money or I will kill you!" or even just "I will kill you". Presumably, the elaborated version would have been "Mr. Vandermolen should be killed!" or maybe just "I really don't like Mr. Vandermolen."

Should one private individual be allowed to express the opinion that another private individual should be killed. If we don't allow that, then we can't really allow people to advocate the death penalty but if we do then we allow threats.

In my opinion, it's all pretty subtle. I tend to like freedom so I think the school's actions were excessive but I'm not exactly planning to contribute to the kid's legal defense fund either.

Re:Sounds about right

[DarkVader]

Actually, the constitutional rights that are restricted by age are specifically spelled out in the constitution. For example, the right to vote is not constitutionally protected until your are 18. The right to hold certain public office is also restricted by age.

The right to free speech is not. Check out the text of the constitution sometime.

Also, the public schools ARE an arm of the government, and are constitutionally prohibited from abridging the rights of ANYONE.

Re:Sounds about right

[Cinder6]

The icon didn't say "I will kill mr. cockgobbler", it said "kill mr. cockgobbler". It's an imperative, not a plan. And since it's something stupid, like a forum icon or IM icon or WTFever it was, it's pretty clear that it wasn't even a serious imperative, let alone a threat. Therefore, he didn't break the school's policies - clearly the cops didn't think it was a threat. They're the "experts", if they don't think it's a threat (even a psychologist agreed) then what the hell does the school know? Leave the psychoanalysis to those who know something.

Exactly. Mod parent up. If I walked up to you and said "Eat ham," would you think "Oh boy, this guy is going to go eat some ham!" Or would you think "Why the hell is this guy off the street telling me to eat ham?" Guess what, you would think the latter. Same case with this story. There was no threat.

Re:Sounds about right

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "flayed in the quad", but it sounds like a threat to me.

Re:Sounds about right

[Shadow Wrought]

Also, the public schools ARE an arm of the government, and are constitutionally prohibited from abridging the rights of ANYONE.

SO students shouting "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" in class cannot be disciplined? Hardly. How racially imflammatory t-shirts or curses? You're saying the schools can't do anything about that? Its political speech after all. The limits on a police officer on the street are different fromt he limits of a school administrator.

Check out the text of the constitution sometime.

I have many times. I've also read the ways in which the Constitution has been applied by the SUpreme COurt as well as the intention of the Founders based on their writings. Maybe you should try a couple extra steps yourself.

Re:Sounds about right

[st0rmshad0w]

This kid should start a band called "Kill Mr. VanderMolen" and use the icon for t-shirt and cd cover art.

And ADULT HUMAN BEINGS need to quit being pansy-assed cowards.

Re:Sounds about right

[Chris Burke]

Whether it was intended as a joke or not, it's still a threat - just like those signs you see at the airport warning you not to joke about a bomb in your suitcase.

Um, no, that doesn't make a joke a threat. The airport signs state that for security purposes they are required to take jokes as if they were real threats, so don't do it. That doesn't turn a joke into an actual threat.

This isn't an airport. We aren't required to be deliberately stupid and pretend we don't know the difference between a joke and a real death threat.

Any fool could see that he wasn't serious. Hell, he was showing it around to all his friends probably just to show them that he was daring enough to say something bad. Does that make it cool? No. So give the kid detention, or if you really want to go hard on him then suspend him for a couple days.

But a whole semester? That's out of line, and is going to seriously impact his school year, just because they're deliberately misunderstanding their own student. We have to end this paranoid craziness! If things like this were punished in the same way when I was in school, I never would have graduated.

Re:Sounds about right

[Anonymous Coward]

You remember since when the signs start to appear at the airports?

Re:Sounds about right

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be your own fault if you did not graduate provided this awareness had also been more common. You may say that it is obvious it is a joke, but can a school not act and in turn risk potential injury to its students in guessing it is a joke or is it on the level of an air port that can not risk potential injury to its passengers and others by assuming a mention of a bomb is a joke? They are equal, each has responsibilities that can and are often enforced with court decisions as has happened here. The decision to suspend was school policy, that was given. The complaint made by the parents in objection to the suspension that the article considered a thread was somehow protected speech was struck down. It is not protected according to the court and so the objection made by the parents failed. That is it. This is logical.

Re:Sounds about right

[LegendLength]

And what if the teacher was Muslim and the kid had a shaved head and was rumoured to hang around with white supremacists? What if he had a historical charge of violence against other people?

Precedents are set by courts for a reason. If you analyse a specific case then decisions can seem over the top, or too lenient.

You must also take into account that the teacher was obviously not on great terms with the kid, and so seeing a broadcast death threat from someone like that would get you at least slightly worried.

Re:Sounds about right

[LegendLength]

This kid should start a band called "Kill Mr. VanderMolen" ...

I don't see how that would be any different in the eyes of the court. If the kid had no troubled relationship with any Mr VanderHolen then it would be understandable.

Re:Sounds about right

[LegendLength]

This isn't an airport. We aren't required to be deliberately stupid and pretend we don't know the difference between a joke and a real death threat.

And yet if a teacher slaps a kid on the head (even as a joke), it is *NEVER* *EVER* given the slightest chance of being interpereted as a joke. IMO we are just paying the Piper for over-political correctness that has been forced upon schools and other government orgs.

Re:Sounds about right

[bky1701]

Fear. Fear is the power of oppression. Fear some more people and ideas, please.

Re:Sounds about right

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really very fed up with this limp wristed "liberal" crap.

Re:Sounds about right

[bky1701]

In that case, there would be cause to think it maybe a real threat, that should be investigated. Other then that, the situation is the same; it should be any person's right to say whatever they damn well please, whenever they damn well please.

Re:Sounds about right

[Cinder6]

And what if the teacher was Muslim and the kid had a shaved head and was rumoured to hang around with white supremacists? What if he had a historical charge of violence against other people?

From TFA: "Aaron had no serious disciplinary problems until [the incident in question]."
I would assume that such a person would likely have at least some record of delinquency.

Precedents are set by courts for a reason. If you analyse a specific case then decisions can seem over the top, or too lenient.

That's why an investigation is made. And one was. "As a result, the school district sent Aaron's parents a notice of a formal disciplinary hearing and also tipped off the sheriff's department (which declined to do anything, concluding that the icon was indeed a joke). Meanwhile, a psychologist concluded that Aaron did not pose a threat." As has been said quite a few times in the comments here, the school chose to ignore both the sheriff's department and a psychologist. Why bother going to the authorities if you aren't going to listen to their findings?

You must also take into account that the teacher was obviously not on great terms with the kid, and so seeing a broadcast death threat from someone like that would get you at least slightly worried.

And? Yes, I would be worried. I wouldn't really like that kid very much, either. But with the findings of both the police and a professional psychologist, I'm sure I would realize there was no actual threat. It would also be a great opportunity to evaluate my teaching method to find out why, exactly, this kid (and possibly others) hates me so much. Also, for the record (again), it wasn't a threat.

Instead of being rational about it, this kid was suspened for a semester. It's going to take him that much longer to graduate. Sure, he wasn't smart to do it, but at least there no actual physical harm came of the "threat" (and, apparently, none was intended or planned). Who benefits from the school's sentence? Nobody. Let the parents decide the punishment.

Re:Sounds about right

[st0rmshad0w]

Its a creative endeavor?

So if such a band was indeed formed, and there were three members, the kid in question, another student of VanderHolen's with no KNOWN issues with him, and a student who was never in VanderHolen's class, what happens when the group is brought to the attention of the school.

Mind you the kid in the article was deemed NOT A THREAT by a psychologist.

I can only image what would happen if "My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult" was actually a high-school band in this day and age.

Overreaction on all sides is way too common these days, everyone's lost their bloody minds.

Re:Sounds about right

[LegendLength]

Its a creative endeavor?

Are you asking me to come up with band names that would not be allowed? Because it is quite easy although not very tasteful to post.

Re:Sounds about right

[Xyrus]

I agree. Exactly what would your response be if you saw a kid walking around in a t-shirt with the image of your son or daughter with a knife through their skull with the message "Kill xxxx!". I'm pretty sure your reaction wouldn't "Oh those silly kids!".

~X~

Re:Sounds about right

[biggomez777]

The first amendment doesn't say you have protection unless you're a minor. Either it's a basic human right (hence its position at the top of the bill of rights, which are supposed to apply to all humans equally) or it isn't. Pick one.

Actually, yes it does. Minors by default are not citizens, and therefore are not protected by the bill of rights, or any of the constitution. While there can be endless debate as to if this is right or not, it's how it is.

And, if anyone ever talked to him at school, saw the icon at school, or in any way interacted with the icon at school, it suddenly becomes a school matter. If something hadn't happened at school it would have made much more sense to argue that the school has no jurisdiction outside of its own walls than a 1st amendment defense.

And I'm not sure where you're from, but where I'm at you can stop going to school at 16, not 18.

Re:Sounds about right

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech does not include the right to threaten other people.

Free speech means exactly what it says - your speech is free of any restrictions. That's any restrictions - whether you're talking about threatening someone, killing the president, directing someone to a drug dealer, making jokes about someone's mother...

It may be that truly free speech is not desirable in our society. Regardless, we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that we have free speech, when we don't.

Re:Sounds about right

[Cyphermage]

First of all, the standard for threats, as interpreted by the Supreme Court during the Vietnam era, permits one to say that if one is drafted, the first person one will shoot with ones newly issued rifle is the President of the United States. Such a comment is clearly political speech, and carries with it no actual threat to the President.

By such a standard, there was no risk at all of criminal prosecution for the icon, and the sheriff's department did the correct thing in declaring that no crime had been committed.

Which brings us to the school. Schools think they can do anything to students without consequences. They keep pushing the envelope in terms of claiming jurisdiction over students 24 hours a day, in their homes, in their communities, on their Web logs, and anywhere else they can get away with it. Schools are making themselves into an unelected ersatz government over everyone under 18 in this country, in all aspects of their lives, and are using the post-Columbine mentality of the country to get away with it. Courts won't interfere, because they don't want to be bothered with kids' issues, and they don't want to waste court time in quibbles over things that happen at school.

What if this icon had said that the teacher was a idiot, and his feelings were hurt. Nothing prevents a school system that claims jurisdiction over the speech of students in their homes from suspending him for a semester over that either.

Re:Sounds about right

[Chris Burke]

You may say that it is obvious it is a joke, but can a school not act and in turn risk potential injury to its students in guessing it is a joke or is it on the level of an air port that can not risk potential injury to its passengers and others by assuming a mention of a bomb is a joke?

What's this about guessing, as if there's some reasonable chance it could go either way and there's no way to distinguish?

The cops looked into it. A psychologist looked into it. Both concluded things were as they appear: a joke by a teenager with no real danger behind it. Yet the school board persisted in treating it as though it were an actualy threat. This is retarded. The fact that the school board -- and only the school board -- was unable to distinguish between this and a real threat is not an argument in support of their position. It is an argument for recognizing that our institutions are becoming deliberately stupid.

The decision to suspend was school policy, that was given. The complaint made by the parents in objection to the suspension that the article considered a thread was somehow protected speech was struck down. It is not protected according to the court and so the objection made by the parents failed. That is it. This is logical.

All the court ruled was that the school's actions were not illegal. That's a far cry from logical. The court doesn't rule on whether school policies are stupid or not.

So school policy is to suspend students on the basis of tasteless jokes made off school grounds, and this is supposed to be logical. Where's the logic in showing students that the faculty not only doesn't understand them, but mistrusts and fears them as well? Treating people as though they are threats is one way to create a threat where none existed.

But yes, it's so logical to treat people as though they are threats even though any reasonable person could see they aren't. Since these people are so stupid, I almost feel I should help them out by pointing out that it's usually the quiet ones who actually end up hurting people rather than just making jokes about it. Sadly, armed with this information the school would surely start persecuting kids who don't make animated gifs about killing authority figures. After all, not acting out in any way could be a sign of lethal intent, and how could they possibly know for sure if it is or not?! Think of the liability issues if they are wrong! That really isn't any more stupid than what took place here.

Re:Sounds about right

[Oligonicella]

"Similarly, if I write an opinion piece...to assassinate him..."
You are aware that this is a crime in and of itself?

"Then we come to the question of an ambiguous statement, Kill Mr. Vandermolen..."
Do you even know what the fuck ambiguous means?

"...Mr. Vandermolen should be killed!..."
I apologize, you clearly don't understand. The first statement is a directive, the second an opinion. The first is not covered by free speech, the second is. However, the second still would be unconscionable and punishable in a school environment.

It's only pretty subtle to you because you don't understand the difference between a statement of opinion (should be killed) and a directive (kill). I hope this English lesson has helped.

Re:Sounds about right

[Anonymous Coward]

If minors had not citizenship, then every minor, even a foreign tourist, would become a citizen of the USA when bein on the USA soil on own 18th birthday.

Besides, the bill of rights does not specifically mention the word "citizen", it uses the general word "people" instead.

Re:Sounds about right

[biggomez777]

OK, I'll be more specific for the coward. Minors born to citizens of the US are not given the RIGHTS of citizenship until 18. I'm going to avoid application for citizenship, people born in country to illegal aliens, etc, and stick to those who were in country legally/born here.

Re:Sounds about right

[Random832]

But still... some rights in the constitution only apply to citizens. Those described in the first amendment are not among them.

Re:Sounds about right

[Anonymous Coward]

What proof do you have that minors are not citizens by default. Minors have the every right in the constitution as adults. The key difference is that minors do not the legal authority to exercise certain rights, such as those of voting at 18; however, a minor has just the same right to free speech as adults. If you think all minors have no citizenship rights, then hell we need to shut down every highschool newspaper in the country, because its editors and reporters are not citizens and therefore have no freedom of the press.

First Amendment?

[RandUser]

This seems pretty clear-cut: although the student _is_ free to say whatever he wants, a death threat supercedes being "protected" as far as actions from the school district. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from repercussions, and the kid/his parents are getting a pretty decent lesson in this.

Re:First Amendment?

[ChrisGilliard]

Correct, death threats are not free speach. The classic example is that freedom of speach doesn't allow you to scream fire in a movie theatre.

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The amendment even mentions the right "peaceably to assemble". Even though that is probably a reference to protests, the spirit of the law is clearly to allow do things as long as the are peacful. Also, what about the teacher he threatened? He has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well. Could a death threat disturb this right? Of course it could. If I was a teacher I would not be happy about it at all and expect the school to do what they have done.

Re:First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

How pathetic are the teachers you know that they would seriously believe that they are seriously threatened by something like this? Any teacher who wouldnt react with "Hahaha, studentname is a dumbass. Moving right along the square root of X..." has no business teaching our children.

Especially when the 'death threat' was not even communicated to him!

Re:First Amendment?

[pavon]

I am not a lawyer and so I don't know what the legal requirements for death threats or hate speech are, but if jokes were always taken at face value, there would be literally hundreds of thousands of people on the internet who would be guilty of that crime.

Then again he wasn't found guilty of any crime, just that the school was within it's bounds for the suspension. Considering that the effects of his activities at home did spill into the classroom and were thus the realm of school authority, some punishment was in order. However, one semester suspension for a joke is too harsh in my opinion.

The teacher seriously needs to learn to chill out. Kids have been drawing gory pictures of teachers for years, and unless there was other behavior that suggested that this was anymore than an immature childish joke, he over-reacted.

I also don't like the fact that the judge considered the reaction of the teacher in determining whether the event was a joke or not. I can see in cases like harassment, if the defendant considers something harassment, then it is regardless of how accused sees it - if the behavior continues after accused has been informed as such. But the idea that you can't joke about murder at all, lest someone take you seriously is pushing things to far.

Re:First Amendment?

[voice_of_all_reason]

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from repercussions

What?

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Does freedom of speech mean freedom from (government) consequences? YES! If you have to worry about being imprisoned for speech, then it is not free.

Re:First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from repercussions,...

Actually, that's exactly what it means. Saddam Hussein wasn't preventing people from saying they disliked him, he just subjected them to certain repercussions when they did (if you belive the Bush administration that would include being run through a plastic shredder).

Whether we should have completely free speech is a separate question (private individuals try to control each other all the time in normal relationships) - but, yes, freedom of speech is freedom from repercussions.

Re:First Amendment?

[shiftless]

I once drew a similar picture about my stupid math teacher when I was in middle school. I got put in "alternative school" for a week, and life went on. The picture was funny as hell. I laughed, my friends laughed. We had a sense of humor, so we laughed about it and life went on. To vent my frustration, I drew a picture; would you guys have preferred it if I had brought a .357 to school and shot up the place instead? What about this kid?

People these days freak the F**K out about the stupidest crap, and to be honest it's really friggin annoying. A death threat is a note written to the teacher saying "I'M GONNA KILL YOU" or a note written to someone else saying "I'M GONNA KILL $TEACHER." A death threat is NOT a picture that someone drew out of boredom to vent some frustration.

Any other day you people would be bitching about Jack Thompson talking trash about gamers. So you guys are saying violence in a game is OK, but violence in a simple, stupid little picture is wrong? Get your story straight.

You guys know as well as I do that school systems take stuff WAY too damn seriously and blow it WAY out of proportion. These days if someone is caught doing something as trivial and harmless as bypassing the Internet filters at school, the school tries to put them in jail for being "cyber-terrorists" and "criminals". Jesus Christ, are you sure you want to defend these idiots?

Re:First Amendment?

[RandUser]

You can be locked up for screaming FIRE in a theatre.

Re:First Amendment?

[RandUser]

I didn't say that I agree with the school - I can remember all the stuff I used to say about teachers back in the day. The school is most likely overreacting and, as another reply said, they are considering the reaction of the teacher in this ruling which is a load of crap. However, just because I think this zero tolerance BS schools have adopted in the past ~decade doesn't mean that they are outside their bounds. I wish they would take a more metered approach to dealing with "incidents", but I still think that they're within their (current) bounds to suspend him for his poorly thought out icon. School administrations are full of power tripping assholes and these parents put up one hell of a weak defense.

Re:First Amendment?

[RandUser]

As I said in response to a similar reply, you still can't yell FIRE in a theatre.

Re:First Amendment?

[voice_of_all_reason]

Correct. It's obvious by reading the news that laws are not always constitutional, but they are passed and enforced because it's easier/politically safer than changing the goddamn piece of paper every time we want to do something it prohibits.

If everyone really wants the legal authority to punish people who shout fire, or to deny "terrorists" the right to a trial, we already have a system for doing so. Draft an amendment and get it passed.

Re:First Amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point the poster was making is that freedom of speech without freedom from government-imposed consequences isn't freedom at all.

Your example of yelling "fire" in a theather is a strawman, at best. Our rights are absolute except where exercising those rights would violate the rights of others. Arguably, yelling "fire" in a theater isn't even speech. Even if so, it violates the rights of others by threatening their right to life.

Re:First Amendment?

[SnarfQuest]

Please look up the terms libel and slander.

There are a lot of things that you can say that will put you in jail. If you don't believe me, walk up to the President and say "I'm going to shoot you in the head and kill you". You'll be in for the surprise of your life.

Re:First Amendment?

[ChrisGilliard]

How pathetic are the teachers you know that they would seriously believe that they are seriously threatened by something like this?

The icon showed a gun pointing to a head, a bullet leaving the gun, and blood splattering from the head. It included the words "Kill Mr. VanderMolen,". You don't consider this a threat?

This is completely disrepectful. The kid needs to learn respect for his teachers. I'm not saying he needs to go to jail or anything, but there should be consequences for his actions. This is part of school and growing up in general. I would not expect a teacher to overlook this complete lack of respect. Any teacher that reacted the way you mentioned should not be allowed to teach.

Especially when the 'death threat' was not even communicated to him!

Obviously, he found out about it. So, someone communicated it to him.

Re:First Amendment?

[LegendLength]

if jokes were always taken at face value, there would be literally hundreds of thousands of people on the internet who would be guilty of that crime.

And if borderline threats were always treated as jokes, there would be a few less people period.

Why isn't "Kill Jonny the Democrat voter" as a sign on my front lawn a joke, when Jonny lives close by and so do some extreme violent right wingers? After all, I have no plans or intention to kill him, it's just a joke because obviously I would not kill someone.

An interesting questions is would you judge me differently if I were black, in a gang and then broadcast the death threat to my homies? What if I were white, my parents were both bikes and were abusing me and I was near snapping point? Or maybe if I were suicidal and would possibly take down a teacher I hate with me.

I agree that intention is an important factor in a court's decision. If real intention was proven in this case then the kid would be getting more than a 6 month school suspension.

Re:First Amendment?

[himurabattousai]

A death threat is a note written to the teacher saying "I'M GONNA KILL YOU" or a note written to someone else saying "I'M GONNA KILL $TEACHER." A death threat is NOT a picture that someone drew out of boredom to vent some frustration.

The icon refers to a specific teacher, and mentioning that one teacher by name raises the icon from of bad taste to a threat. Instead of writing "I'll kill," he created an animated image which clearly demonstrates a violent action. This is no different than releasing a photograph or video depicting someone's murder and subtitling it with "You'll be next, ." Death threats are always an expression of frustration (real or imagined), but with the added element of expressing the goal of inflicting very real harm.

Any other day you people would be bitching about Jack Thompson talking trash about gamers. So you guys are saying violence in a game is OK, but violence in a simple, stupid little picture is wrong? Get your story straight.

Video games are an abstraction of life. Gunning down space aliens (as in DOOM) can in no way be construed a threat to anyone. Modifying that game to have various, stereotyped school administrators as the targets or desiging a level that resembles your school may start to border on bad taste, but again, is not a threat. Turning every lurking creature into what is recognizable as your math teacher, however, could be interpreted as a threat under the right circumstances. Doing so and then including anything to indicate that the video game is being used to convey an intent to bring the scenario to life will get you in trouble, guaranteed.

Remember, too, that this is a 15 year old male. Teenagers as a whole, and males in particular, are immature, impulsive, indestructable and immune from the consequences of their actions. This alone is reason enough take a threat against a specific teacher seriously. That he bragged about it adds reason to take it serioulsy.

Did the school over react? Most definitely. Will a six month suspension (more like an expulsion) ever resolve this kind of situation? Absolutely not. Should this kind of thing be ignored? No, not ever. The school has the right to ensure safety on its grounds for both students and teachers. An IM icon that advocates the murder of a specific teacher speaks to the possibility, however small, that the action will be carried out by the creator or one of his school mates.

Re:First Amendment?

[shiftless]

The icon refers to a specific teacher, and mentioning that one teacher by name raises the icon from of bad taste to a threat. Instead of writing "I'll kill," he created an animated image which clearly demonstrates a violent action. This is no different than releasing a photograph or video depicting someone's murder and subtitling it with "You'll be next, ." Death threats are always an expression of frustration (real or imagined), but with the added element of expressing the goal of inflicting very real harm.

The picture that I drew when I was in middle school was actually a comic strip, referring to a specific teacher (not named but it was obvious), clearly demonstrating a violent action (it was very similar to this guy's icon.) It was not a threat in any shape, form, or fashion; there was no intent whatsoever to even contemplate actually carrying out any of the actions portrayed in the drawing. So, I would have to disagree with your opinion that this guy's icon was necessarily a threat. It could have quite possibly been a joke, innocently done just to pass the time, just like my drawing was. If there is no intent, it is not a threat.

Did the school over react? Most definitely. Will a six month suspension (more like an expulsion) ever resolve this kind of situation? Absolutely not. Should this kind of thing be ignored? No, not ever. The school has the right to ensure safety on its grounds for both students and teachers.

Agreed.

An IM icon that advocates the murder of a specific teacher speaks to the possibility, however small, that the action will be carried out by the creator or one of his school mates.

I disagree with this line of reasoning. Unless a drawing, note, or other communication is without a doubt an indication of intent to do wrong, I don't believe a person should be punished for that supposed intent. If I draw a picture of the Brooklyn Bridge exploding and mail it to the White House, there would understandably be some concern. But would this concern justify putting me directly into prison? No, as a U.S. citizen I am entitled to a trial where the prosecution would be burdened with proving my unlawful intent. Only after sufficient evidence against me had been gathered, and a jury of my peers found me guilty would I face punishment -- and that punishment would neither be cruel nor unusual, nor excessive. (Well, that's the idea, anyhow.)

I am not saying trial by jury is the proper way to determine guilt and mete out punishment in a school setting. What I'm saying is that school administration need to chill the fuck out and stop with this zero tolerance B.S. At school, kids learn about the U.S. government and how great our justice system is, and how the U.S. kicks ass because everyone gets the right to a fair trial and everyone's innocent until proven guilty. Well, unless you're in public school, in which case you're automatically assumed to be guilty, nobody listens or cares when you say you're innocent, and your punishment is way out of proportion to the actual offense.

If they had just given this kid a good "talking to", a couple good licks with a paddle, and had him sit down and have a one-on-one, personal conversion with this teacher, that's all it would have taken. He'd have gotten to know the teacher as a person instead of just some unfair asshole and he'd probably have felt ashamed for what he did. They probably never would've had a problem out of him again. But now this kid is going to spend the next 6 months at home thinking about how much the school sucks. He's going to feel justified in his dislike of authority in general (and the math teacher in particular) by this wrong and excessive punishment -- and he's right! He's going to come back to school with a bad taste in his mouth and a bad attitude. Good job, idiots!

Re:First Amendment?

[RandUser]

"Even if so, it violates the rights of others by threatening their right to life."

This made me chuckle: the teacher was directly threatened by the student's action. By your process, the kid has no protection. Whether or not the school could have handled this a lot better is not something I'm arguing (I doubt the student was being serious) - however, in the judge's writeup there is a bit about intent or capacity to carry out a threat being irrelevant; the district is within its domain by punishing the student.

I don't like it, but I can't argue with it.

Re:First Amendment?

[nwbvt]

Here is the exact text of the First Amendment taken straight from the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please highlight for me the text saying you have freedom from consequences regarding speech. Hell, just show me the part saying the school district cannot impose consequences for something one of their students said.

Of course there may be consequences for things you say. In fact, thats really the only reason for speaking in the first place. If I say something, I expect others to hear it and react in some way which I hope is positive. If your definition of freedom is freedom from consequences, well I don't think you are going to find that anywhere.

Re:First Amendment?

[voice_of_all_reason]

Of course there may be consequences for things you say. In fact, thats really the only reason for speaking in the first place. I think you're confusing "consequences from government" with "consequences from private citizens/businesses". Yes, your boss can fire you just for telling a racist joke (assuming you don't work for the state) The government cannot fine or imprison you for telling a cop to fuck off (in theory). Please highlight for me the text saying you have freedom from consequences regarding speech.

Is there any other way for the government to impose consequences (ie, punishment) than to make something against the law? Are you really arguing they should be able to apply force against actions that are not illegal?

Re:First Amendment?

[nwbvt]

"think you're confusing "consequences from government" with "consequences from private citizens/businesses". Yes, your boss can fire you just for telling a racist joke (assuming you don't work for the state) The government cannot fine or imprison you for telling a cop to fuck off (in theory)."

No, the government can still impose punishments because of something you said. The simplest example is a murder suspect who confeses to the police (assuming had he not confessed, the cops would have not been able to build up a case against him). Because of what he said though, they are able to convict him for murder. This is because while it isn't illegal to say you killed someone, it is illegal to have killed someone in the first place.

"Is there any other way for the government to impose consequences (ie, punishment) than to make something against the law? "

Whoa cowboy, back up a minute. You still havn't shown me where it says a body of the government (in this case the school board) cannot make a law (actually I think they call them rules, but its the same thing) prohibiting speech (remember use only the First Amendment as that is the topic of this thread).

Re:First Amendment?

[ipfwadm]

You do realize that there are other people in the world besides yourself, right? And that those people have rights too? I have a right to swing my arms any way I want. This is so intrinsic and self-evident that the founders didn't feel the need to enumerate it as a right in the Constitution. But my right to swing my arms ends at someone else's nose. Likewise yelling fire. I have a right to speak what I want. I don't have a right to make a theater full of people run for their lives, potentially causing serious injury to one another. I don't think any reasonable person, even the founding fathers that wrote the amendment to begin with, would believe that this type of speech is protected.

And besides, there is no law specifically against yelling fire in a crowded theater. Most likely it would fall under disorderly conduct, false reporting, or something like that.

Next you're going to tell us that libel should be allowed because the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press.

From TFA

[Com2Kid]

Mordue rejected the free-speech claims, saying the "icon constituted a true threat /blockquote.

Those pixels, they are after us!

32x32ers 4evah! ....

violence in schools

[Nesetril]

they say it all when they reference escalated violence in schools. of course if you are feeling insecure, you will get outraged about anything, even a silly gun icon. but what kind of a teacher loses touch with his students to such a degree that he is afraid that they will point a gun to his head?

Re:violence in schools

[Builder]

The teacher who was the housemaster when I was at boarding school was shot and killed in his classroom in front of a class of around 30 11-year old kids by an older student.

So just occasionally, the fear is justified :(

Re:violence in schools

[voice_of_all_reason]

That would have to be a fancy Shimmering Cloak of Evasion to be worth even the price of a non-magical sword. Come on, they're in completely different value classes!

Re:violence in schools

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of a parent loses touch with his children to such a degree that the child thinks threats are cool?

I blame the parents

[The Famous Druid]

When I was a kid, if I'd done anything like that my dad would have given me a good hiding, these 'parents' (and I use the word loosly) hire a lawyer to get their kid out of trouble. WTF?

I say take the kid and his parents out behind the woodshed and give them a lesson in manners they'll never forget.

Re:I blame the parents

[geekoid]

that's not very druid like.

You would be right(in essence) if these matter were left up to the parents, but they're not.

Was it bad manner? yes. Was it a threat? no.

Re:I blame the parents

[ejamie]

Agreed. I would not be suprised if these 'parents' were in it for the $. Hoping they could win a quick buck on their child's "emotional distress" from being kicked out of school.

I don't care if this would affect the kid's future plans to go to harvard/yale/etc (doesn't sound like the kid is smart enough for that anyway). The parent's support of the suit sends the wrong idea to the child: "your violent thoughts/jokes are OK".

I don't want that kid in the same classroom with mine.

Re:I blame the parents

[Billly Gates]

I wonder if the kid will grow up to be one of those litigatous bastards or blame someone else whenever something bad happens and never learns from his past mistakes.

Re:I blame the parents

[The Famous Druid]

>that's not very druid like.

Yes, you're right, but these days the old-fashioned wicker-man approach is frowned upon ;)

Re:I blame the parents

[houghi]

If by 'a good hiding' you mean some real physical punishment, that won't be possible, because the kid could sue his parents for child abuse.

Why?

[omegakidd]

I don't understand why this is such a big deal. What about the icon implied that he wanted to kill the teacher? I know it's an image of the teacher dying, but that still doesn't say anything that he would actually do that sort of thing. Why can people write books about killing certain people, but at the same time one can't make an icon of killing someone?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The icon showed a gun pointing to a head, a bullet leaving the gun, and blood splattering from the head. It included the words "Kill Mr. VanderMolen," the name of Aaron's English teacher at Weedsport Middle School. I consider that to be pretty serious. The kid might not have planned to do anything however it doesn't exactly reassure you that he is mentally sound!

Re:Why?

[omegakidd]

Is there a sure way of expressing one's feelings nowadays without fearing the law? I know this is an extreme case, but still.

Re:Why?

[Lord Kano]

You must have been homeschooled. I can name half a dozen teachers that I would have liked to see die. That doesn't mean that I would have ever killed them.

LK

Let me get this straight....

[brendanoconnor]

So a 15 year-old kid had an icon on his home computer (not at school) that depicted a gun shooting a head with text saying, Kill Mr. Teachersname. The kid had absolutely no disciplinary action on his record before this incident. In fact, the only reason the teacher ever found out was because another kid saw this icon, presumably while visiting the offender, and reported it. I do not see how this can be made out to be a real threat. A very poor taste of a joke, certainly, but a threat? No way. Now, maybe if the offending kid had this icon at school, or maybe had a drawing of it on a paper that was being handed over to the teacher, I could understand that as a threat. But this, no way. I think the teacher and the school district definitely overreacted.

Re:Let me get this straight....

[strobe74]

You obviously have never used a chat application. ALL chat apps that I've ever seen broadcast your icon to anyone that has you on their list or talk to. It was also pointed out that the kid was spreading the icon around. The plain and simple fact is that just because the first amendment exists.. DOESN"T GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO THREATEN THE SAFTY OF OTHERS, joke or no joke. You can't joke about bombs on airplanes; you can't jokingly yell FIRE in a crowded theater, AND YOU CAN"T THREATEN SOMEONE"S LIFE. The first amendment does not accord you those rights and never has. The kids parents, the kid and a few of the people here need to go read the first amendment some time so they know what they're talking about. Now if you want to argue over what constitutes a "true threat" that's fine but as the judge put it, there was no evidence of a joke which is the determining factor in deciding what speech is protected and what is not when it comes to threats. That means that it could have been interpreted as a real threat because there was nothing to show that it was anything otherwise. I remember kids at columbine being interviewed after the shootings, saying that they though it was a joke when those two kids were talking about shooting people. You just can't be sure anymore, especially when you have kids being raised by parents that think this kind of behavior is not only ok, but should be legally protected. It's ridiculous that people's general education level has gotten so low in this country that there are people actually defending this asinine kid and his parents.

Re:Let me get this straight....

[ejamie]

I'm not so sure you would feel the same if your child was the classmate of this kid. Violence should not be condoned.

Re:Let me get this straight....

[TWooster]

Back when I was in fourth grade, '95 or maybe '94, I made a website about my two least favorite teachers. Mr. Gilbertson and Mrs. Mitchell. The website implied that they were actually the product of incestuous relations, and brothers/sisters separated at birth, with photographic evidence of this. The site sported photos of each, with alternately his beard on her face, and her hair on his head.

My parents were somewhat concerned about this, though they were both actual legitmate dickheads and deserved such lampooning. So I linked "secretly" to the site from my main (ala "The Net" w/ Sandra Bullock) and laughed gleefully as I showed my friends.

I wonder if that could've been libel.

Re:Let me get this straight....

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right, violence should not be condoned. It is a good thing a picture and some words are not violence.

Re:Let me get this straight....

[LegendLength]

You are right, violence should not be condoned. It is a good thing a picture and some words are not violence.

So you would allow any type of communication regarding future violence because it is not actual violence? I know this is rude but that simplistic view was thrown out of court about, oh, 500 years ago.

Re:Let me get this straight....

[LegendLength]

I wonder if that could've been libel.

One simple test is to put yourself in a hypothetical position of power (e.g. a teacher) and see if you would then class it as libel. I don't think many people would for your example, but it obviously depends on how you presented the page (clearly as fact or not).

Re:Let me get this straight....

[Lord Kano]

IANAL, but I can read. Another criterium for libel is if a "reasonable person" would believe that the statement is true.

For example if someone said that Bill and Hillary Clinton or George and Laura Bush were siblings because they're from the same state and have the same last name and thus their offspring are the results of incest.

No reasonable person would believe this and thus it can't be considered libel.

LK

Strange reaction and strange ruling

[sinij]

Lets say I make an icon of "kill Bush" and gun pointed at his head and make it an icon for my IM. Now lets say I make similar icon of "kill my boss". Why 'teacher' relationship calls for an exception? Being an idiot is my right protected by constitution.

Re:Strange reaction and strange ruling

[raehl]

Lets say I make an icon of "kill Bush" and gun pointed at his head and make it an icon for my IM. Now lets say I make similar icon of "kill my boss". Why 'teacher' relationship calls for an exception? Being an idiot is my right protected by constitution.

Uh, it doesn't? Your company will fire you for making that icon of your boss too, and you wouldn't win a lawsuit fighting that either.

Re:Strange reaction and strange ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

In the first example, you get a visit from the US Treasury Department and maybe do some jail time for threatening the life of the President.
In the second example, you lose your job.

Seems like this particular case is completely consistent.

You have the right to be an idiot. You don't have the right to be protected from the consequences of your idiocy. Look up the legal concept of "prior restraint" to get an idea of how this works.

Re:Strange reaction and strange ruling

[PitaBred]

So all these people who advocate killing bush have been visited by the the Treasury Department? WTF does the treasury department have to do with the President anyway? Perhaps you meant the Secret Service?
Back on-track, there is a certain amount of leniency left in the First Amendment for sarcasm, and even a whole phrase called "macabre humor" that describes these kinds of things. If he had been planning to actually hurt the teacher, that's one thing, but I can't even think of the number of times I've said to myself (and others) "I wish I could kill that asshole" or something similar. It's not a threat, it's an expression of displeasure. And just like a previous poster noted, "Fuck you!" doesn't mean I plan on having any kind of sexual relation with the person it's directed at.

Re:Strange reaction and strange ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

> Perhaps you meant the Secret Service?

The GP was trying to show off his knowledge that the Secret Service are Treasury Department enforcement officers. They got Presidential protection duty back in the 1800's, because there just weren't enough federal cops in any other department.

Or anyway, they <em>were</em> before becoming part of the DHS. Maybe the GP should try being a little less clever.

Re:Strange reaction and strange ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

"So all these people who advocate killing bush have been visited by the the Treasury Department?"

It is against U.S. law to threaten to kill the president. Any of these people who are U.S. citizens are open to criminal charges. If any of these people who are not U.S. citizens should set foot in the U.S., they are open to detainment and jailing, notwithstanding their foreign citizenship. U.S. laws apply to anyone travelling in or even through the U.S.

Tsk tsk, the little things liberal propagandists don't tell you...

Re:Strange reaction and strange ruling

[Tab is on Slashdot]

You must not have ever taken a high-school level Government class. The first ammendment does NOT protect your right to command that a specific person be killed. The K.K.K. may legally proclaim that their members should kill all blacks, but they may not say "kill that black man over there". This is textbook stuff.

Re:Strange reaction and strange ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

Being an idiot is my right protected by constitution.

Yes, you can even go online and freely post idiotic comments to slashdot...

Re:Strange reaction and strange ruling

[igb]

Lets say I make an icon of "kill Bush" and gun pointed at his head and make it an icon for my IM.

Which circulates around your social circle and their social circle and so on unto the nth degree for three weeks? You get a visit from those nice men from the US Treasury and you end up in jail.

Now lets say I make similar icon of "kill my boss".

You lose your job. Even here in the employment protection socialist world of Europe, you lose your job. Instantly. And then you get to explain to the nice men with peaked caps what you were doing.

Why 'teacher' relationship calls for an exception? Being an idiot is my right protected by constitution.

Persumably, by extension, you'd have no difficulty with teachers circulating a list of pupils they want to see killed?

ian

Once again, with feeling:

[The tECHIDNA]

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
-- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Schenck v. United States, March 3rd, 1919

Re:Once again, with feeling:

[voice_of_all_reason]

Yeah, well he's dead now. Let's discuss it again.

Re:Once again, with feeling:

[delirium of disorder]

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." -- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Schenck v. United States, March 3rd, 1919

People keep throwing around that quote from Holmes, but I doubt most of them actually know what the Schenck case was about. During World War I Charles Schenck, a Socialist, circulated a flyer to recently drafted men. The flyer, which cited the Thirteenth Amendment's provision against "involuntary servitude," exhorted the men to "assert [their] opposition to the draft," which it described as a moral wrong driven by the capitalist system. The circulars proposed peaceful resistance, such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act.

Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. The Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., held that Schenck's conviction was constitutional. As a result of the decision, Charles Schenck spent six months in prison.

Schenck was not falsely shouting "Fire!" in a theatre. The demonic forces of imperialism had already lit the whole world on fire, and Schenck was calling for water to put the blaze out. The compulsory education system, which I would argue also violates the Thirteenth Amendment's provision against "involuntary servitude," currently threatens to keep the inferno of war burning. History classes indoctrinate students in a whitewashed jingoistic version of the US past and instill in them a deadly aggressive patriotism. Military recruiters sit in halls and lunchrooms, ready to convince our youth that the only economically viable future after they graduate is in war. Students who resist this system in a non-violent manner should be rewarded, not punished. An aim icon does not convey enough information to express a plot of any sort. It is simply a frustrated cry against the prison that is school in America. Like Schenck, this student is innocent.

Ah... good plan

[popo]

I guess, the official school policy is to treat anti-social, disenfranchised young people, to a solitary year of introspection.

Yeah... that'll work. He'll be much calmer and better adjusted after a year by himself playing video games all day -- and he'll be much happier next year with a new set of younger classmates who know he's the "crazy kid" who got suspended for weird photoshopped artwork.

Should we arrest every hip hop artist now? And the creative staff over at Take2?

Re:Ah... good plan

[WilliamSChips]

Should we arrest every hip hop artist now?

Yes, but because of the damage done to the ears of so many people, not anything related to violent lyrics.

Re:Ah... good plan

[fishybell]

I agree fully. I don't condone the kid's actions, I definately don't feel a suspension would help the true problem.

A friend of mine in eighth grade sent a threatening letter to president@whitehouse.gov as a joke. The same day a fellow from the FBI (or the secret service, it was a long time ago, I wasn't there at the time, and I really no longer remember) came to the school, asked who was using a certain computer at a certain time, found my friend, and gave him a good stern talking-to about threats, pranks, and such much like you would get if you prank called 911. However, the school in it's infinite wisdom banished him from lunch hour (he had to eat alone in a empty room) and computer class for the rest of the year (again, he spent the hour alone in an empty classroom). So all throughout high school (and still to this day) many people know him only as "that kid who threatened to kill Clinton."

My friend had learned his lesson just fine from the response from the feds, so why did the school have to impart such a grand, and rather debasing, punishment? Mostly for personal pride I feel. That way, if asked, they could say that they were "tough on crime" and "tough on delinquents." Believe me, my friend was no delinquent before that, only after. Coincidence? I . Think . Not.

Re:Ah... good plan

[Anonymous Coward]

So all throughout high school (and still to this day) many people know him only as "that kid who threatened to kill Clinton."

My friend had learned his lesson just fine from the response from the feds, so why did the school have to impart such a grand, and rather debasing, punishment?

Probably to make an example of him to make sure everyone knew what he did was incredibly stupid and that noone else should every do it. Like you said, everone knows what he did and what happened to him.

Re:Ah... good plan

[igb]

why did the school have to impart such a grand, and rather debasing, punishment?

Pour encourager les autres. And it worked, didn't it? Everyone in the school now knows what happens if you mail death threats to the Whitehouse. ``My friend had learned his lesson just fine from the response from the feds'' is dubious: someone smart enough to learn that particular lesson wouldn't have been so stupid in the first place. That the US Secret Service react to all threats to the president is hardly a news story, is it?

ian

Re:Ah... good plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Should we arrest every hip hop artist now?

Is just killing them outright an option?

Re:Ah... good plan

[Aladrin]

Maybe during that year the parents will get sick of having to deal with his issues themselves and actually DO something for the kid. He obviously needs more help than they've been giving him, so maybe they should be giving the time for it. A year sounds like a good start. That'd be about 3 months to annoy the parents to distraction, then 6 months of the stick, and 3 months of the carrot. He might actually be ready for normal social interaction after that.

Unfortunately, I suspect the time will not be used wisely and instead they'll try to ship him away to some 'anger management camp' or some crap and again deny their responsibility.

The best thing that ever happened to me was my Dad's belt in 4th grade. All the teachers had paddled me that year and the year before, and it obviously didn't matter one iota. It only took my Dad 1 try. He never had to use the belt again, and the next spanking I got came in the 8th grade because it was that or sit in 'AC' and write the dictionary. I prefered to go back to class, so I demanded they phone my parents for permission and paddle me. The other guy that got in trouble (Bubba) felt forced to do the same and actually cried from the paddling. I smiled all the way back to class as apparently my hide is thicker. (We got in trouble for 'throwing pencils' in class, even though there were actually 5. The other 3 were on the football team, see.)

I didn't understand the lesson intellectually until quite a few years later. All I knew at the time was that I NEVER wanted that belt on my butt again, and I never wanted my father that mad again, either.

This kid has obviously never felt either.

Indeed.

[raehl]

Clearly the court prefers that you don't threaten people before you kill them.

Re:Indeed.

[Jrabbit05]

Then wheres the fun in that? *Note to police*: No I did not kill any one. Nor did I think about plotting. We just think hard enough that they die all by them selves no plot. I'm not kidding you officer.

Re:Indeed.

[Reverend528]

Clearly the court prefers that you don't threaten people before you kill them.

Well, clearly slashdot does. Because lets face it, if a student shoots his/her teacher, we probably won't hear about it, but if that same student makes an IM icon and gets reprimanded, we do hear about it.

Conditioned for Obedience

[Bones3D_mac]

What's even scarier than the alleged "death threat" (which was never delivered to the "victim" to insight "terror" in the first place), is how many posts here actually suggest the kid deserves punishment. It's an expression of opinion, not an order to carry out a murder on his behalf. Have we become so accustomed to conformity that any dissent from athority is met with zero tolerance?

Needless to say, I'd guess 9/11 accomplished it's goal exactly as it was intended to do. We're now little more than bunch of Smurfs screaming and running around erratically every time something bad might happen.

Re:Conditioned for Obedience

[Al Dimond]

I don't think anyone is saying that "any dissent from authority" should be punished. Just that spreading around an icon with an animation of shooting one of his teachers is not protected speech. If the kid published criticisms (even in the form of irrational, profane rants) of the school or the teacher, that should certainly be allowed. But instead he made a threat.

If you were a teacher and someone was spreading around animations of you being shot, would you want to teach the kid? Maybe think about school not just as a right for the student, but as a job for the teacher. If you were in any other business working with someone that was passing around stuff like that you'd be well justified to never to do business with that person again. The school, providing a necessary government service can't have full freedom of association, but I think it's justified to try to provide an environment where teachers and students can feel safe.

Quit being so paranoid. This isn't about 9/11. It's more about Columbine. When I think back to what I and some of the other kids in my junior high talked about and wrote about, even published on the Internet in pre-Columbine days, and how innocent that really was, I think that this kid probably doesn't deserve a semester-long suspension. When I wrote violent haikus in English class back then (one was about a nuke going off in a peaceful meadow or something, I was young, dumb and read too much Tom Clancy, whom I probably plagairized in that instance) I got a stern talking-to and learned something about how to behave acceptably. That's probably what was right for this kid, too, or maybe some mild punishment. Ultimately it is disappointing that this could have been an opportunity for the kid to learn about the consequences of his words and actions, but it will probably be lost in the legal battle.

Re:Conditioned for Obedience

[ademaskoo]

Have we become so accustomed to conformity that any dissent from athority is met with zero tolerance?

Yes, this is exactly how things have become. I was brought up on charges by my college because I gave a student govt campaign speech against the current fiscal policy. Dissent is a big no-no to these people.

Re:Conditioned for Obedience

[Bones3D_mac]

If you were a teacher and someone was spreading around animations of you being shot, would you want to teach the kid?

Sure. Unless the kid personally confronted me with a legitimate threat on my life, I'd pass it off as little more than typical teenage rebellion.

Re:Conditioned for Obedience

[Billly Gates]

Yes, playing devils advocate here I think it does set a bad predicent for the child.

You need to be obedient to your boss, spouse, kids, and your responsibilites in life. It sucks but hey its life. IT starts with school and school teaches you to be up and being somewhere on time everyday and to do work related things at home. Its training for work as well as recieving a solid education. People are obediant to you as well in life so its what everyone does.

You dont make death threats and if it was about a boss (assuming he was an adult) and he/she found out about it, would the kid still be employed? I think not.

Still a suspension might be more appropriate off of school grounds. Teachers are threatened more time than you think and you should try to put yourself in their shoes? Its a bad job that they do out of reward for helping others succeed.

Re:Conditioned for Obedience

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not to be read by Bones3D_mac, as I do not wish to deliver this note to him, or otherwise have any of this taken as a "terror" threat. Niether should any of this be taken as a "death threat" as it is just a matter of opnion. In no way should any take this as an order to do any harm to the poster. It is merely mentioned mentioned in passing that in an effort to not conform, we might come up with creative and interesting methods to dispatch the poster, none of which would be considered in bad form because there is evidently nothing wrong with talking about killing people on the public forum.

Re:Conditioned for Obedience

[LionKimbro]

If you were a teacher and someone was spreading around animations of you being shot, would you want to teach the kid?

Yeah. I would.

Because it's totally normal behavior.

It's just kids.

In the olden days, I'd bet they just drew the teacher they didn't like, being hung, or something like that.

Kids just want to be free. This is a no-brainer.

Y'all are just getting so damn paranoid, and feeling like you have to have a universal system to attach to every damn situation, that you're choking the life out of everybody.

I fear that y'all will have nanotechnology in your hands. What'll you do with it? You'll force people to not think thoughts.

Today we're talking about stoping what people can write or draw. With nanotech, we're going to do the whole cybernetic hookup; I just know it. And then, it's clear: We're going to limit what people can imagine or think.

It'll start with monitoring people, to make sure that they aren't scanning buildings for security holes: "Looking at them funny." Or maybe it'll be monitoring mens eyes, to make sure that they don't look at a 17 year old for too wrong, or in the wrong way.

And then it'll move into our heads. There will be known patterns of imagining that have led to innocent deaths before: The man who's angry with his boss. (Or will the term change to "Zerg OverMind?") He plays the murder of his boss, over and over, in his mind.

In a healthy man in the present era, he will realize, "No, that's nonsense, but I must break out of this relationship," and seek another employer, or start a business, or something.

In this future we are eagerly looking forwards, too, though; In this future, such an imagination is criminal.

And what will be the result?

Men won't imagine such things. Indeed, it will eventually be rendered impossible to do so.

Scary road, folks. Scary road. Not one I'm willing to go down.

I'll take a statistically regular (increasing population) Columbine every 5 years, and a continuously decreasing percentage of violence every year, over the world without crime, but also without imagination.

I don't want to be your cyborg.

Re:Conditioned for Obedience

[chphilli]

Just want to pass along my agreement with your post - there's a lot of other posts around that disagree.

I think the most important point is that the teacher felt threatened. I'm sure that there's going to be one or more posts saying that he was probably just out to get the kid, but none of us, including myself, have any idea what was actually going through his head. None of us know the past history between the teacher and this kid, or any other kids at this school.

You're entirely right, this isn't about 9/11 at all - it's about taking action to prevent a tradgedy that may or may not have been in the making.

And for the dissenters: yes, the punishment may have been overly harsh - I don't know the kid or the situation, so I can't speak to that. But, the fact that the teacher was scared is reason enough to act - the first amendment does not provide protection for threats or actions/words percieved as threats, just like it doesn't protect your right to yell "Fire!" in a theatre.

Re:Conditioned for Obedience

[LionKimbro]

You dont make death threats and if it was about a boss (assuming he was an adult) and he/she found out about it, would the kid still be employed? I think not.

There's something very strange here, though: I always thought that if you are making a "death threat," then that means that you're actually approaching someone, and making a claim: "I am going to kill you."

I didn't know that if you'd just opened up notepad.exe, and typed in, "Kill so-and-so!", with a graphic next to it, that that constituted a "death threat."

That is, in the typical image of what it is to make a threat, you actually DELIVER SOMETHING TO SOMEONE.

The critical difference is: If you never delivered it, and you never intended to deliver it, it could just be: You're making an accessment of your feelings. You're working in your own personal heart collage, making sense of the world, and recognizing, "Oh, I want to kill that person."

Do you believe that the kid intended to deliver that message?

Do you think it's appropriate to say that the kid made a death threat, if the kid did not deliver it, or even intend to deliver it?

Do you believe it's okay for people to keep a journal, and if so, to write "Kill X, Kill Y," in a fit of anger?

After reading several postings...

[bagboy]

I wonder if some find this shcoking at all. My wife works for the school system - many teenagers exhibit similar behavior and in almost every (but not all) case, the parent's attitudes and lack of respect for authority are often attributing factors. Free thinking and speech is a good thing. However, anything without boundries is dangerous. Its often those boundries that keep us a civilized society - moving forward.

Re:After reading several postings...

[Anonymous Coward]

moving "foward"

Re:After reading several postings...

[ademaskoo]

However, anything without boundries is dangerous. Its often those boundries that keep us a civilized society - moving forward.

Who can say what should be right and wrong? It was a little icon. I'm sure if you held everyone in this damn country to the same standard, then rappers and wannabe thugs would be imprisoned for exactly the same shit. School officials should realize that guns are a part of hip-hop culture now and that some students don't view these things as bad - how can they when they see fidy cent doing it all the time? The question is, should this culture be respected?

Re:After reading several postings...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, this is totally inane thinking. Without morals (right vs wrong) society is not - anarchy becomes the way of life, if you like this thought, there are some societies in third world countries where you'd fit in just fine.. Geeze, pull your head out...

I have to disagree with this ruling

[soft_guy]

Even though I disagree with the kid making this icon, I still can't agree with a ruling limiting free speech.

Re:I have to disagree with this ruling

[sdpuppy]

Problem is the text that accompanies the icon. That makes it a threat and makes it personal.

Re:I have to disagree with this ruling

[SnarfQuest]

"Free speach" doesn't mean that you can get away with saying anything. Look up "libel", "slandor", and "yelling 'fire' in a crowded movie theater." There are many limits to "free speach" already, and a lot more if the Democrats get their way.

If you took a letter to a teacher that said "Give me all your money or I'll kill you", would you consider that be a similiar form of "free speach"? This one just leaves off the "Give me money" part. Would you take such a "give me money" to a bank, and then argue "free speach"?

Since Columbine, and the assorted copy-cat events, schools have to take threats like this seriously. There are only two possible interpretations of his "icon". If he himself wasn't planning on doing the deed, he was at least advertising for it to be done.

Re:I have to disagree with this ruling

[Justin205]

...and a lot more if the Democrats get their way.

I haven't been following every little thing in the US (I'm Canadian), but hasn't it been the Republicans limiting free speech rather severly the past six years?

Re:I have to disagree with this ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech? I guess that depends on wether the student puts a stamp on the letter or not

Teenagers

[doombob]

There's no law against teenagers doing stupid things, but there probably should be. Anyway, I can't believe the parents are fighting for this kid - if my child did something like this, he would face the consequences of his actions like a man. If someone said "I wish so-and-so great bodily harm," it's quite different from saying "I am planning to cause so-and-so great bodily harm." The first way gets you in trouble, the second way gets you in jail. It's a matter of interpretation left to the courts at this time, and it seems like they're leaning towards the second.

Re:Teenagers

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect that your interpretation of being a man is behind of the time by several centuries. Todays men do defend their rights in courts, not on duel grounds.

This is not protected speech

[rbanzai]

If this kid shot his teacher (or fellow students) and after the fact this story came up people wouldn't be talking about free speech. They would be amazed that such a blatant "warning sign" was ignored.

I'm glad it did not develop into actual violence but I wonder what's going on in that kid's head. I disliked teacher's when i was a kid but did not feel strongly enough to express it graphically and so bluntly.

It's not protected speech. It's a stupid, violent statement that would not be laughed off by the /. crowd if they were the target of this kid's anger. It's not funny, it's creepy.

Re:This is not protected speech

[necro2607]

"I disliked teacher's when i was a kid but did not feel strongly enough to express it graphically and so bluntly."

Oh, well, I did...

Re:This is not protected speech

[91degrees]

Yes... And if this punishment means that he's free at a certain time then gets involved in organised crime and murders dozens of people then we'll know that the punishment was proablbly a bad idea. The fact is that this didn't happen, abd what "might" happen is purely hypothetical.

Re:This is not protected speech

[indil]

I don't think people would be amazed that he was overlooked. The police and the psychologist had no problem with what the kid did, yet the school punished him anyway. Obviously the school only involved the police to punish the kid, not because they were interested in whether what he did was legal or not.

If he did show up to school with guns blazing, it would be a fluke -- the exception, not the rule. The kid was evaluated and found to be perfectly normal and healthy. Like so many people have said before, it's the equivalent of muttering threats under your breath. It means nothing. It's an IM icon, for crying out loud. Furthermore, the "death threat" wasn't even delivered to the teacher, so it can't even be considered a threat. If the kid's friend hadn't reported him, the teacher would never had known.

Why is it not protected speech? The kid did not actually threaten to kill the teacher -- "Kill Mr. X", not "I will kill Mr. X". The school has no control over students outside of school. For instance, a school can punish a student for swearing in class, but not at home. Yet that's exactly what's happening here: the school's punishing the kid for what he did at home, not at school. I just don't get it.

Re:This is not protected speech

[Anonymous Coward]

What would they say if the boy harmed his teacher after the suspension is over? What would they say if he stalked the teacher and shot him dead on the way home? If this boy really is serious about getting his teacher killed, then suspension probably would not avoid that threat in any way. I see this as the school authorities are only making decisions to pass the buck while not really caring if the outcome is reasonable. Well, that is what many people are doing at work anyway.

Questionable

[Sv-Manowar]

It makes you wonder that by not directing the threat at everyone, and it being reported by someone else at whether he was actually directly making a threat that was worth punishment. I'm not condoning what he did, and if you haven't learned that doing that kind of stuff will get you in trouble (hell, Slashdot even had a story recently about employers who check Myspace and Google for more detailed background information on potential employees) on the internet will eventually get you caught then you definitely deserve anything that is coming to you. To me, it seems like the judge hasn't grasped all of the aspects in the case, most notably the fact that an image cannot possibly represent a threat unless used (which is arguable in this case).

Re:Questionable

[geekyMD]

Why doesn't an image represent a threat? A picture, demostrating harm, that also has words explaining the illustration seems like the most basic form of written communication humanity knows. If you choose to call it a 'poster' or an 'icon' makes no difference.

The issue is one of privacy, its not a threat to have this materials in your bedroom, its quite another thing to depict someone burning in effigy on your front lawn. The difference is visibility.

From TFA:

On their face, the words 'Kill Mr. VanderMolen' and the accompanying graphic cannot be viewed as anything but an unequivocal, unconditional, immediate threat of injury specific as to the person threatened, such as conveys a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution.

(emphasis mine)

So long as this remained private (ie. just on his computer), I could see it as not being a threat, but then he used it as his IM icon, there by making it public. It circulated among his peers, those he trusted and distrusted, and at least one of his peers (possibly many - how many high school students acting alone would report this sort of thing?) didn't see it as humor but as provocation. And so they reported it, they move the picture from one public circle to another. Thus the threat became known to the potential victim. This caused the victim to fear for his and his family's safety. While the intent may not have been there, the icon certainly was percieved as a threat which is entirely reasonable on its face. The fact that it was digital and on the internet certainly didn't change a darn thing.

Bear in mind the standard would be different in a criminal proceeding, but this is a violation of the schools rules, and the school is the proper and correct arbiter of its own rules. The courts were only involved to see if the schools had violated a constitutional right or their own stated and universally agreed to policies. Which they had not. Perhaps the severity was more than we would like to see, but thats not a reason for the court to nullify the school's decision.

Re:Questionable

[necro2607]

After you reach a certain level of anger towards something, your concern about getting in trouble lessens in comparison to your need to express that anger or frustration. As in, the anger building up in a person can become to much to deal with and has to be externalized in some way or another - sometimes that can be more important to a person than "staying out of trouble".

What I'm saying is, maybe he was too pissed off to really be all that worried about getting in trouble. Not to mention he probably didn't expect someone to report his icon to the school officials. ;)

Feel sorry for the kid...

[kabocox]

O.K. From what I read in the article, the kid had this on his home computer and didn't send it out to anyone. There was another so called "friend" that "freaked out" mentioned to said disliked teacher, whom seriously over-reacted and now this kid is going through the wringer. It took me a while trying to understand the objectionable comment in the article. I find it odd that the stated icon wasn't reported. I have downloaded tons of smiley icons with them killing each other. It seems like the kid made something like that and stuck "Kill Teacher's name" under there. I think there was an over reaction on the friend's part and the teacher's part. If anything the student should be able to sue the friend, teacher and school for taking away his right to see representations of his teachers die. The article states like the kid was trying to direct others to think about killing said teacher, which isn't the case that the article presents earlier. The article stated the kid had it on his home computer and wasn't emailing it or spreading it around. That right there to me says the kid is fine. Heck, how many of you have pasted your boss's, and old teacher's or some one that you really don't like picture onto the enemies of a FPS? It sounds like this was something a kin to that, but the friend freaked out about it. Just because of that damn'ed Columbine kid doesn't mean every other kid should loose their right to hate and bitch about their teachers/parents/ or whom ever behind the authority figure's back. It's crap like this that will make this nation into a police state. I've thought about similiar things all through school. I never labeled any icons or what not though. What's the point? I had a whole list of teachers that I didn't like.

Re:Feel sorry for the kid...

[kencurry]

I also feel sorry for him, but for a different reason.

His parents are worthless.

If the kid had problems in the class, the parents should have helped him to deal with that in a constructive manner.

If he was doing okay in the class and this is how he got his kicks, we'll then there is not much hope for him.

Why not?

[phorm]

OK, how about if he had a webpage full of icons, or whatever. Why should an icon be any different than anything else?

The point isn't so much how the threat was presented, it's that the behavior was completely innappropriate. There's a line between 'cute' and 'stupid', and this falls under stupid. Depictions in any form of a gun to somebody's head, not to mention the text, shows that the kid need to get his head checked.

Not perhaps an animated icon of the teacher being hit by an anvil would be more amusing... as it lacks the realistic consequence and threat of a gun to the head. But in either case the "kill Mr Teacher" has enough of a sinister ring that it required a penalty to discourage other such idiocy.

Re:Why not?

[yeolcoatl]

I would maintain that a website is fundamentally different than a buddy icon.

In the minds of people, a website is by default public. It is meant to be seen and essentially constitutes a broadcast.

On the other hand, a buddy icon (regardless of the actually security measures implemented) carries semi-private conotations. The icon is meant only for your friends -- those you talk to with your messaging client.

I'm sure the student did not want the teacher to see his buddy icon. And if there was an intent to keep it secret, I don't see how it could constitute a threat. It might still be some other sort of crime, but not a threat.

Re:Why not?

[LegendLength]

On the other hand, a buddy icon (regardless of the actually security measures implemented) carries semi-private conotations. The icon is meant only for your friends -- those you talk to with your messaging client.

He would still be advocating the teacher's death to his IM friends (if you do not consider it as a joke).

Re:Why not?

[yeolcoatl]

I agree. This is why I say that although I don't consider it to be a threat, it may still be some other sort of crime.

Re:Why not?

[LegendLength]

Sorry I get you. You are right, it is interesting of how such a 'threat' would be classed by the law.

If you consider two extremes such as:

  1. I tell my friend in person that person X needs to be killed.

  2. I broadcast to everyone that person X needs to be killed, but person X doesn't see it.

I get the feeling they would both be considered conspiracy to murder?

"lost touch?" - more like untouchable

[ScentCone]

what kind of a teacher loses touch with his students to such a degree that he is afraid that they will point a gun to his head?

You're assuming that the teacher was ever in touch with that student, or that any teacher ever could be. Don't forget that this kid is the product of parents that think the kid's actions were just fine. So - who's at fault, the teacher that can't "get in touch" with a hostile kid, or the parents that think the kid's portrayal of an encouragement to kill a teacher isn't any different than speaking in the debate club?

Re:"lost touch?" - more like untouchable

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

Where in the article does it say that his actions were fine? They are going for the free speech lawsuit because it's the strongest case to change the punishment of a 1/2 year suspension for drawing a picture. If it was my kid, I would punish the crap out of him, and explain why I was going to court, and make sure he worked off the attourney fees!

Re:"lost touch?" - more like untouchable

[LegendLength]

... punishment of a 1/2 year suspension for drawing a picture.

Sounds similar to being imprisoned for 10 years for just 'moving your hips' (ie. rape).

Re:"lost touch?" - more like untouchable

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no it doesn't.

Re:"lost touch?" - more like untouchable

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

Thank you, that almost made me sick. Drawing and passing a picture is closer to harrasment, but he touched no-one, nor did he make any kind of contact with his teacher directly. Rape is a very serious crime that in my opinion should be punishable by death.

oh come on

[geekoid]

Are you telling me that through out all of high school you never said something like:
"Another pop quiz? I wish the teacher were dead."
or say:
"I want to kill that SOB"!

Re:oh come on

[lannocc]

I think it may have to do with the phrasing. Quotes like "I wish the teacher were dead" or "I want to kill that SOB" seem to imply a fantasy more than a threat. However, rephrased as "I'll make sure the teacher were dead" or "I will kill that SOB" the quotes are more threatening, maybe?

Re:oh come on

[PitaBred]

So a cartoon of someone being shot in the head is now somehow the same as "I will kill someone!" versus "I wish someone was dead"? How can you tell with certainity? Or would you rather punish first, and never ask questions, as long as everyone pretends to get along fine, everything's great? That is, until someone snaps, and no one has any idea why it happened...

Re:oh come on

[merreborn]

By that line of reasoning, the kid can't have been threatening the teacher, as there is no "I" in the phrase "Kill Mr. Vwhatsis" whatsoever -- clearly he was merely attempting to incite others to violence.

Re:oh come on

[Haeleth]

However, rephrased as "I'll make sure the teacher were dead" or "I will kill that SOB" the quotes are more threatening, maybe?

Well, yes. However, given that the message that this article is about did not, in fact, contain any statement of intent, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say.

Re:oh come on

[kthejoker]

Thinking violent thoughts against someone in the briefest of instants is one thing. Making an explicit icon shows quite a bit more effort. This clearly was at least one or two orders of magnitude more than your average excited utterance.

Also, just to be clear, if you yelled at someone, "I'll kill you!" you can be arrested for assault, too. Fighting words are not protected speech because they aren't designed to interact in the marketplace of ideas and speech - they're designed exclusively to provoke violent action.

(PS It's awesome that the Supreme Court has made numerous decisions around the term "fightin' words.")

Re:oh come on

[LionKimbro]

So, the question remains: Did you ever say "I'm going to kill that SOB!" ...even though you weren't going to?

I honestly don't remember, but my memory tells me: A lot of students said that sort of thing. At least back in my days.

Would we be better off suspending them all? It's not clear to me that the answer is yes.

Frankly, I'm shocked at the Slashdot response.

Re:oh come on

[geekoid]

yes yes, I am aware you can be arrested for assault, but it seldom happens.

My point was people make violent gestures all the time, with any real intent.

Plus, it doesn't say he is going to kill anybody, and it is directed at anyone, so it's not really 'fighting words'.

Re:oh come on

[ShaunC]

Are you telling me that through out all of high school you never said something like:
"Another pop quiz? I wish the teacher were dead."

Sure I did, but I made damned sure that nobody but the friend(s) I was talking to would overhear me, and I sure as hell never wrote it down. I learned very early on - 4th grade, as a matter of fact; I still remember the teacher and the incident - that anything you write down can and will come back to haunt you. It's a lesson I've not forgotten. I'm glad that I actually had the ability, the freedom, and the opportunity to fuck up so young. It's saved my hide in any number of situations that I might have otherwise gotten into since then.

That said, I can understand why this kid didn't know not to "write it down." There's been a huge paradigm shift in society since those days. I was fortunate enough to live my childhood and adolescence in an age where most parents took responsibility for raising their own kids, instead of throwing up their hands in defeat and bitching that the government didn't do it for them. I grew up in a time where I actually knew what "go play outside" meant, and my parents actively encouraged me to do so, with no adult supervision, no less!

It was through those experiences that I learned how to look out for myself. I learned right from wrong. Perhaps more importantly, I learned that sometimes, doing the "right thing" is the wrong decision, and vice versa. There are times when doing something wrong, or even breaking a law, is the prudent thing to do. And there are those times when no matter how right you may feel, no matter how oppressed you might think yourself to be, and no matter how unfair life is, you simply need to shut up and take it, or at the very least, avoid flaunting your opinions until such time as you're confident that you're going to win the battle. If I could sit down with every teenager in the country and give them one piece of advice, that would be it.

Some may say it's a bad thing that I knew how to play politics by the time I was 15, or that I somehow "lost my innocence" at too young an age, but it's served me well enough ever since and I wouldn't have it any other way. I may have had similar fantasies to the kid in this article about some of my high school teachers, but I didn't communicate them to anyone. By the time I hit high school, I already was aware of what the limits were, how far I could push them (for the most part; I'm not saying I never got in trouble at all ;) and when they'd push back.

I have a hard time picking a side in this case. On the one hand, I want to say the kid is an idjit for doing what he did. On the other hand, I can sympathize with why he did it. Flip the coin again and I have a hard time comprehending that someone who's grown up "post-Columbine" wouldn't realize that this sort of thing is going to cause problems. And back to the other side yet again, he's probably just ignorant and clueless, and doesn't know that columbine is the name of a pretty purple flower, much less that of a tragic school shooting. I don't really blame the school system, but I can't blame the kid, either.

Kids these days are so sheltered by their parents that they aren't getting the chance to develop those decision making abilities. As the saying goes, "good experience comes from judgement, judgement comes from bad experience." In other words, if you aren't afforded the opportunity to make the wrong decisions now and then, you're never going to learn how to make the right decisions.

Mom and Dad hear on the news every night that a child molestor lurks on every streetcorner waiting to snap up Junior (or Juniette), and they buy into it, and suddenly "go play outside" is replaced by "go play video games." Social interaction is limited to groups of their peers, and frequently not in-person. Then Mom and Dad see one of - what is it, 8 or 10 now - episodes of Dateline NBC about !!!EVIL SEX PERVERTS ON EVERY WEBSITE ARE RAPING YOUR

Re:oh come on

[LegendLength]

So a cartoon of ...

Already covered under existing free speech laws (as cartoons are by definition humorous). If the cartoon was shown to be pure propoganda to kill someone without any humour then it would not be covered of course.

Re:oh come on

[LegendLength]

... A lot of students said that sort of thing. At least back in my days. Would we be better off suspending them all? ...

But they didn't broadcast it. They also didn't take a few hours to design an icon that captured their fleeting thought of anger.

You can say or write pretty much whatever you want privately. It is broadcasting that message that is the problem.

Re:oh come on

[xilmaril]

I distinctly remember, back in elementary school, me and many other children saying things like "I hate ms. (name deleted). Why can't she just die!?!" and "we should really murder her, it's for the common good."

Does this make me a guy with a disturbed childhood? I don't think so. I know it makes me no more disturbed than the other 30 kids in her french class.

of course, we weren't total idiots, we never blabbed to a teacher about it. That was the biggest problem in this kid's story.

Re:oh come on

[TheSkyIsPurple]

>Are you telling me that through out all of high school you never said something like: >"Another pop quiz? I wish the teacher were dead." i don't think the OP was, but it doesn't matter. The FACT is: If the kid killed the teacher everyone would be asking "Why didn't they pick up on it sooner?", and start cracking down even more. I think the kid should get in trouble, but not suspending him for a semester. Have him help clean the school, or just do Saturday school or something for a month.

Re:oh come on

[alphamugwump]

Many kids are growing up right now with no sense of trust, no confidence, no belief in themselves, and no feeling of responsibility or ownership over their own actions, whatsoever. And is it any wonder why? No trust has ever been instilled in them. The crux of the problem, as I see it, is that too many parents are too pussy to trust their kids to the world, too pussy to punish them when they fuck up, and too pussy to admit that they're being bad parents. Hey, parents: it's OK to be a hardass once in awhile, and by God it's OK to give your kids some breathing room; my peers and I turned out just fine.

Heh. I remember going on a canoe trip at camp a while ago. After floating down the river for a couple of hours, the canoes got spread out, so that they were out of sight of each other. And then this kid gets an idea: "Hey! Were all alone in the middle of a river! We can cuss as much as we want!"

Duh! Haven't you ever been alone before, kid? Ever?

That one still cracks me up.

Re:oh come on

[LionKimbro]

Did he broadcast? The article kept saying that it was on his personal computer.

Re:oh come on

[ipfwadm]

Many kids are growing up right now with no sense of trust

On a semi-related note, when did this whole "never talk to strangers" and "stranger danger" BS start? What a load of crap. Kids are more likely to get kidnapped/molested/whatever by someone they know than some random schmuck on the street.

No wonder everyone is so anti-social, when we had it hammered into our heads growing up that strangers are mean and scary.

Re:oh come on

[ShaunC]

Heh. I remember going on a canoe trip at camp a while ago. After floating down the river for a couple of hours, the canoes got spread out, so that they were out of sight of each other. And then this kid gets an idea: "Hey! Were all alone in the middle of a river! We can cuss as much as we want!"

Out of sheer curiosity, was it a religious camp of some sort? That's off on a tangent but living in the bible belt I see that sort of attitude more often than I'm comfortable with. Like, whoa, mom and dad aren't around so god isn't going to care if I say "fuck!"

I'm only 26, and it pains me that there are kids (well, teens..I'm not trying to be condescending) existing in this country who think that cussing is some sort of luxury.

I heart my parents! I can't say it enough. It's all about the parenting. I feel sorry for the dude who couldn't believe he had an opportunity to curse - I hope he adjusts well. The real world is something that his parents neglected to prepare him for.

Re:Ridiculous!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are the winner, baby!!!!

"I cant put my bag overhead,my pipe bomb's there!"

[orangesquid]

He should've added a few more frames to the animation that said... "THIS IS A JOKE. (DUMBASS)"
After the whole debauchle with that girl on livejournal talking about the president and getting interrogated by the secret service, I put a disclaimer on my livejournal page saying that nothing I say is actually a threat (if it seems like a threat, it's a joke), and that if anything seems like it's defamatory (libel, slander, what-have-you), then I'm exaggerating or fabricating for literary effect or humor's sake.

Maybe I have a crappy sense of humor. So what? I think I'm entitled to make bad jokes, even if I have to provide a disclaimer. (of course, there WAS that case about the lawyers suing these guys who were making lawyer jokes in front of them... but I think it was on grounds of harassment---still over the top to sue, though, IMHO.)

It's true that you don't always know when someone's joking... and after some of the high school shootings, I guess it's understandable for the school to take it seriously, but, they should have just asked Aaron---"Is this a joke? Do you actually want to harm your teacher? Do you have plans to harm your teacher?" and perhaps requested that he make it obvious that he's joking, or stop using the icon, or something. (Anybody with a copy? Put it on freenet, please?)

The world is different.

[raehl]

When you were a kid, getting suspended once in high school wouldn't drastically reduce your chances of getting accepted into college, or possibly cause severe financial harm to your family by significantly reducing your ability to get scholarships to pay for college.

Your dad would have giving you a good hiding (whatever that is), you would have learned your lesson, and that would have been the end of it. Now stupid kid mistakes can fuck up your whole life, and parents, making the decision between letting you be punished and letting your life be ruined, choose to hire lawyers.

Re:The world is different.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now stupid kid mistakes can fuck up your whole life, and parents, making the decision between letting you be punished and letting your life be ruined, choose to hire lawyers.

Excuse me but "not able to get into Harvard" is not the equivalent of "fuck up your whole life". Send the little wanker to community college for two years then a State school for the final two. Assuming he actually WANTS to learn something, his education will be just as good. If you're talking about the social connections he'll make, you can get just as good connections from FSU, USC, Univ of Illinois or Georgia than you can from any Ivy League school.

It's not like "get accepted to MIT or start practicing the phrase 'do you want fries with that?'" reflects reality at all. Actually, the poor judgement shown by the kid -- who, at that age should know better -- is a good indication he wouldn't be Ivy League material.

Re:The world is different.

[raehl]

Excuse me but "not able to get into Harvard" is not the equivalent of "fuck up your whole life".

It is if you could otherwise have gone to Harvard.

And it's not just about Ivy League schools - competitive programs at even state schools can be fiercely competitive. Usually when you're suspended you get F's on anything that is due during your suspension - that can also hit your GPA. Parents don't want their chances at the best education possible marred by something they do when they are 14.

And education is defnitely NOT just as good going to community college. For one, the other people in your classes are not as bright. For two, community colleges don't have the same opportunities that big schools do - for example, I studied abroad for a year, which wouldn't have happened if I'd blown two years at community college.

Anyway, this isn't about whether community college is an acceptable alternative to regular schools or ivy league schools. It's about why parents are attempting to circumvent school discipline - and the answer is that school discipline, and the long-term consequences of it, has gotten out of hand.

Everything's different on the internet!

[rob_squared]

If this was a button he wore on his t-shirt to class I'd bet that he'd still get in trouble for it, but he'd only have to remove the button. Is it free speech? Sure, but he's a minor and this is not the government passing laws.

I still boggle at the way people's logic flies out the window like a butterfly.

Another example:
Putting a sign on the street that some stranger is selling pot in the alley? Legal
Linking to a site that has a copy of Back to The Future? Illegal

Re:Everything's different on the internet!

[tepples]

this is not the government passing laws.

Yes it is: truancy law.

Re:Everything's different on the internet!

[jimktrains]

Just remove it my ass. School admins don't take shit. They don't ask, they just do. People tend to forget that the School admins are responsible for the safety of tons (literally:-p) of minors. They don't take jokes and don't have a sense of humor. If you don't know that, they you disserve what you get. You have to play inside the rules when it comes to ANYTHING (including jokes) that can be a threat (name calling and what not can't be punished as harshly, since it doesn't constitute a breach of anyone's safety).

Btw, parents protect their kids too much. If they do something wrong, they have to face the music. If I did anything in school, I got punishment twice over at home (and I'm 19, not an old timer).

Here's a thought

[kilodelta]

I say that all we who read this send the Judge a copy of the U.S. Constitution. Seems he needs a lesson.

Re:Here's a thought

[taustin]

Or perhaps we could send you copies of the various Supreme Court rulings that say that A) the 1st amendment does not apply to threats of violence, and B) children do not have rights in the US anyway.

icon..

[agentdunken]

Whats next, going after some one because they said kill his shoes??? -_- it was a flippin icon....

Should we throw Matt Groening in jail now?

[ikekrull]

I feel pretty scared that Bender really is going to 'Kill All Humans'..

Can someone clarify?

[Vellmont]

The article keeps talking about the icon being on his home computer. This implies to me that it's an icon that's used to launch a program, and only exists on his computer. But then there's mention of it being an icon for an IM program, which I assume means it appears next to his name when he posts messages (or something to that effect).

Which one is it? If it's the former, I don't see what the big deal is as it's like writing that in your personal notbook which you never take outside. If it's the latter, then obviously that's a problem.

Re:Can someone clarify?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever I hear the word activist, I reach for my revolver.

You know, that sounds awfully like a threat. I'm just saying.

Re:"I cant put my bag overhead,my pipe bomb's ther

[WilliamSChips]

(of course, there WAS that case about the lawyers suing these guys who were making lawyer jokes in front of them... but I think it was on grounds of harassment---still over the top to sue, though, IMHO.)

Why does that sound so much like a lawyer joke?

A critical excerpt

[Sarusa]

Since this is down at the bottom of the article, guaranteeing that only 5% of you (if that) will actually read it, and it summarizes the Judge's intent nicely...

"Further, to the extent that plaintiffs attempt to argue that Aaron's conduct was purely out-of-school conduct, the undisputed evidence establishes that the icon was a threat to kill a teacher at the school, that Aaron circulated it among classmates for three weeks; that he had no reasonable expectation that it would not come to the attention of school officials; that when it did so, it caused a substantial disturbance at the school; that it is reasonable that it should have done so; and that Aaron had reason to expect that it would do so."

you know

[tacokill]

When I first read the account of what his icon graphic was, I thought.....0wn3d!!! ...and then I thought about what the teacher would think and yea, I can obviously understand why he is upset. Even so, I used to see stuff like that all the time in Counterstrike or BF2. Nasty names. Intimidating chat. Constant taunts. (fine by me, btw) Remember the spray paints? Yea, some of them would be threatening if presented in the real world. But, it's all about context. In the game, it was fine. In real life, it's not. It doesn't say, and I hate to even bring this up, but does he, by chance, play video games?

Is it possible that he was "speaking" in gamerspeak and trying (poorly) to be funny in that way? Remember, it's context. I see stuff like this all the time in the games I play and nobody seriously thinks it's a threat. And I can totally see how some of that would carry over into IM (ie: Xfire). Was he tryng to make a digital joke that failed flatly?

Double standard

[Anonymous Coward]

While I wouldn't jump to the defense of this kid if he had actually threatened to kill his teacher, that is not the case. He just had a picture of a guy getting shot in the head and the caption, "Kill Mr. whoever". Not "I will kill Mr. whoever". The police rightly saw that this was not illegal.

[The teacher] later testified that he was scared, concerned and felt sick to his stomach upon reading the message. He asked to be removed from teaching the English class because he was concerned for his safety and that of his 6-month-old child. The school principal claimed that VanderMolen appeared anxious and fearful.

The teacher is nuts. He's probably an ass to his class and is looking to get a kid that pisses him off into trouble. Nothing from the picture and caption could even remotely be interpreted as a threat to his child. That's ridiculous.

When students express concern about the actions of a teacher, they are, more often than not, told to sit down and shut up. But when a teachers expresses completely irrational fear, the school takes action. Why the double standard?

Re:Double standard

[SnarfQuest]

When students express concern about the actions of a teacher, they are, more often than not, told to sit down and shut up. But when a teachers expresses completely irrational fear, the school takes action. Why the double standard?

Did the teacher scream "I'm going to shoot you in your f***g head and kill you" to your hypothetical student? If he did, do you thing your student should be concerned about it, or should he just consider it to be a funny joke? If you think the student would be bothered by such an action, why shouldn't the teacher feel the same when the reverse occurs?

Why do you believe that the teacher is the ass, and not the student? He is probably one of those students that answers every question the teacher asks with "F**k You", and frequently urinates on other students. His parents probably taught him this behaviour, and think it's extremely funny... See, I can pull "facts" out of the air to demonize the student, just like you do for the teacher. It doesn't make any of it likely, or true.

Re:Double standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, let's forget if the teacher or if the student were asses.

The point is that students are rarely listened to, even if they have very vaild concerns. In this case, the teacher had very irrational concerns (unless you think that his response when he "asked to be removed from teaching the English class" was reasonable) and they were taken seriously. Come on, the teacher was clearly either a nutjob or playing it up. If he really thought the kid was going to bring a gun to school, then why wouldn't he try to get the school shut down rather than just get himself moved out of the class? It doesn't make sense.

Re:Double standard

[batkiwi]

Many teachers are on the internet, and use AIM/etc. Would it have been rational for the student to complain to the authorities if the TEACHER had an AIM icon showing the student being shot, and the text "kill *studentname*" ? I say yes.

Re:Double standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm understanding this wrong, but what I think is being said is that when a student threatens a teacher everyone reacts (and overreacts), but when a student threatens a student, often very little or even nothing is done about it.

Re:Double standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Or that child-killer Microsoft, writing that they are going to knife the baby. Or that mass-murderer Ballmer swearing that he wil fucking kill Google (and admitting that he's a seril mass-murderer: I've done it before)!

Re:Double standard

[Gaffod]

Well, to be sure, there is reason to believe a teacher poses less risk in such an event. After all, how many incidents are there involving murderous teachers? And besides, it is more likely that the teacher is more responsible (that's probably not the right word, I mean "responsible" as in is fully aware that if he does kill the kid, he's in for a couple of years he's not really gonna enjoy).

I'm not saying a teacher's some high and holy entity that is infinitely more trustworthy than "some good fer nuthin' idiot kid", but the teacher don't kill their students as often as the other way around.

While I don't really know that many teachers that well, I've gotten the impression that the teachers, unlike the students, more rarely express (and I suppose feel) desire of violence against their students (beyond, that is, troubling as it may be, perhaps a sound smack on the head), and that is to be expected, too, I imagine: students don't really have as much opportunity (boring lessons, exams, homework, grades, punishments) to be asses as teachers do. Barring a situation like the one in the article, I don't see how it would very simple for a kid to really piss off a teacher enough to actually provoke murder, or threat of it.

That and, I think this "double standard" is illusory. Using the example case provided, if a teacher used an aim icon of a gun shooting a student, he'd might well lose his job, certainly would have a lot of explaining to do, and especially with parents like those in the article probably end up looking for a good lawyer, too. Nope, When it comes to murder and violence, teachers most likely are not in an advantageous position. Now when it comes to sex offenses, things'd change a bit, but that's not really the issue here.

Re:Double standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the immense amount of power teachers have over their students, it seems more likely that the teacher would invoke real fear with such an action.

With regard to why this kind of action is more prevalent in the students, and why it is to be expected, consider the following. Teachers have a real incentive to be civil and fair to their students; they are paid, and even if they aren't being paid a lot, a good job will ensure either a raise or a move to a better-paying district. Students, on the other hand, are forced by law to attend classes, forced by the school to obey school rules, and are kept in school by the threat of having their diploma withheld, or of being escorted to school by the truancy officer. They have been in this state for most of their short lives.

If the teacher sends a death threat to a student, he will get fired, or at least suspended. In the very worst case scenario, he gets blacklisted from teaching. The common case is that teachers either get help with unruly students or quit before they do anything that would get them fired - thus alleviating the problem. The student, on the other hand, may be free to do what he likes, depending on his school's suspension rules, but must return to the same frustrations later. In short, the student - from his own point of view - has little to lose and everything to gain from blowing off steam, and has no other method of escape.

I'm not saying that we should make education optional, or even easier. But we shouldn't pretend shock when someone with no control over their life expresses their frustration, even if the expression is depicted (not enacted) violence.

Re:Double standard

[MarkusQ]

The difference being, all the things I mentioned actually happened. But nice try.

--MarkusQ

Re:Double standard

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgetting that children are... children. They may have not yet reached the level of maturity to understand the difference between the icon with a death threat and the threat to go to the principal's office. Now adults DO (or should) understand the difference. This exercise should have been about teaching a child about how death threats, even joking, are inappropriate.

I find this error repeated over and over again by many intelligent people. You cannot assume that people who perform irrational acts are motivated by rational thoughts.

This doesn't excuse the behavior, or even suggest that the course of action taken by the school system was wrong, though I personally disagree with it. All I'm trying to do is point out that you cannot ascribe rational motivations to irrational behavior. Children (and certain teenagers I classify as children) do not act rationally out of mere immaturity.

Good

[Vampyre_Dark]

A death threat is a death threat. It's cut and dry. Black and white. Freedom of speech is about the right to speak your mind, not something to hide behind when you do these types of things. It doesnt matter if it was written in an IM avatar, on someone's locker, or on the wall in the men's room. In a day and age where this stuff actually does happen, you need to handle it at the first sign.

Why is threatening illegal?

[Ichijo]

C) Why the [expletive deleted] is threatening illegal anyway?

I'd think if you had a plan to hurt someone, the authorities would like to know about it. Seems they'd rather stick their heads in the sand.

poor parenting

[papasui]

If that kid was mine I'd be kicking his ass instead of sueing the school. It may not of been a direct threat but obviously the boy was wrong.

In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

A group of second-graders were arrested today for issuing threats against a teacher. The students allegedly were caught singing a song whose lyrics said:

Tra la la boom de ay,
We have no school today,
Our teacher passed away,
We shot her yesterday

As of press time police were unsure who had created the song.

the parents

[icepick72]

How good kids get turned into idiots.

Re:the parents

[shark72]

Indeed. The attitude of the parents here brings to mind Blair Hornstine, the young lady who sued her New Jersey high school a few years ago to prevent them from naming a co-valedictorian. It was her father's doing, in a misguided effort to get her into Harvard. The net result was that Harvard rescinded their offer, and although she'd also been accepted to Princeton, Duke, Stanford and Cornell, her noteriety left her no choice but to flee the country and attend school in England.

Sometimes parents just need to sit their kids down and tell them they're acting like a tard.

Here's another thought.

[porkchop_d_clown]

The judge not only knows the Constitution, he knows the relevant laws and precedents about threats of violence.

He's not the person who needs a lesson in law.

Re:Here's another thought.

[kilodelta]

How do I explain this to you. Many judges and attorneys have no idea what the Constitution or the Bill of Rights actually says. I should know, I worked with a lot of clueless ones.

What's the big deal??!

[necro2607]

Dude, my friends and I drew pictures of people getting killed or the school getting blown up or whatever, all the time.. Before AND after the Columbine "massacre"... it's pretty trivial and also super common for kids who are extremely frustrated with the school system, sick of being bullied or pushed around, and/or have a crappy social life etc.

Frankly, what's the big deal? The teacher is probably annoying as hell. Some teachers are painfully condescending and patronizing. I know I had a really hard time dealing with that crap all throughout high school. It was even worse because I had parents that treated me very well, and treated me like a fellow human being while they raised me, so my first reaction to teachers' condescention was anger, because it felt like a direct insult to me.

Anyway, before you go calling this kid a dumbass or whatever, consider that not everyone handles things the same way you do.

Re:What's the big deal??!

[devjj]

That may be the case, but it doesn't excuse the fact that we're all (at least in the United States) governed by the same set of laws. It doesn't matter whether you're some punk "fighting the man" or a kid who grew up being treated the way you were. If you'd done what this kid did you'd have dealt with the same punishment. We're supposed to feel sorry for him (or you) because you're different? Please...

Re:What's the big deal??!

[Anonymous Coward]

"That may be the case, but it doesn't excuse the fact that we're all (at least in the United States) governed by the same set of laws"

No we aren't. We're governed by local laws, then state laws and finally the all encompassing Federal laws. Even if you do get to the federal level, we're not so much governed by them so much as the current interpretation by the presiding judge/judges hearing the case.

Re:What's the big deal??!

[geekyMD]

Yeah, me too, in 1st grade. This is a 15 y/o in the upper reaches of middle school, the longer it takes him to learn this lesson the worse its going to be when he eventually learns it.

I'm sorry you put up with so much codensention, but just think about how 4 years of learning to deal with it helped you in the real world with mean ol' bosses, that condescending bank teller, that stupid guy posting a reply on slashdot. We're surrounded by condesention, but that doesn't exactly justify any old response. There are far worse fates than being condesended, and last I checked we're not allowed to murder or even threaten murder for any but a select handfull of them. This is a lesson well learned in my view: the cicrumstances don't matter at all, its how we respond to them that makes us who we are.

Re:What's the big deal??!

[st0rmshad0w]

Um, when I was in school I would have gotten a max of one weeks suspension for actually striking a teacher, how is a whole semester for this even remotely ok?

Re:What's the big deal??!

[devjj]

Has it ever occurred to you that you that the rules back then were too lax? You'd expect - and deserve - more than this kid got for actually physically harming a teacher these days.

Re:What's the big deal??!

[AK Marc]

Dude, my friends and I drew pictures of people getting killed or the school getting blown up or whatever, all the time..

Did you do them of one and only one teacher, and name the teacher when doing it? There is a difference between a depiction of destroying the school and killing everyone (possibly disturbing, but not a threat) and a stated threat (even if meant in jest). And I fail to see the threat as being a "joke." If he had done it about his favorite teacher, one that might have also found it funny, it is a joke. To specifically pick out his most hated teacher and label him for execution (possibly not accurate, but my take on the events) is not intended to be a joke, even if it is intended to be a stress reliever for the creator of the threat. It most certainly is a threat, and not a joke.

Now, I must say that the parents and the school are being pretty stupid about this. The school was overly harsh. The parents are complaining because they think it should be ok to threaten teachers. I'd like to see someone burn a cross in their yard and see if they take it light-heartedly. Yes, he got screwed by the system. That's what you get for fucking with the system. He was wrong. Everyone knows it. Drop it and move on. If he's suspended for a semester from that school, pull him for a year, homeschool him, and put him back where he came from. It doesn't need to be a setback. It is their stubborness and ignorance that will do the most damage to the kid. Their lesson is "do whatever you want, even if it breaks the rules, and if you get caught, whine like a little bitch."

Wow, I don't know what someone put in my Wheaties this morning, but I'm a little bitter. And yes, I too did draw distruction when I was in school. But I know the difference between drawing distruction and making a targeted threat against one specific teacher.

Re:What's the big deal??!

[st0rmshad0w]

No, the rules are/were too strict. Let's say I were to attempt hit a teacher, that teacher could NOT lay a single finger on me without risking firing and/or a lawsuit.

THAT is stupid and promotes the sheer unadulterated cowardice that seems to be everywhere. People aren't allowed to, and seeming aren't able to, take care of matters.

In my fathers day there was corporal punishment in schools, and there was alot more respect for teachers.

If anyone EVER strikes at you in any venue in an attempt to cause you harm, you should be legally allowed to (reasonably, no killing them for a slap in the face, no decking a 10 year old for kicking you) counter that without consequence, no matter who they are.

And since you didn't bother to ask, my sister is a teacher at a high school where a student was given, wait for it, a one week suspension for kicking a teacher who just had given them detension. So I'm not talking about 50 years ago I'm afraid.

Re:What's the big deal??!

[devjj]

You talk about a lack of respect and then say the rules are too strict? I'll agree with you that the law has neutered a lot of common-sensical activity, but I don't think showing lenience for this blatant display of disrespect is the way to address it.

Re:What's the big deal??!

[st0rmshad0w]

The rules are too strict for the wrong entities.

I will agree that the act was disrespectful. Its also disrespectful in my opinion to extend the rules of the school BEYOND the school's grounds. This is something that the police did not see as meriting any action and a psychologist concluded that the kid in question was not any threat. There was no direct threat made to the teacher in question. I image that most people would probably question the kid's parents skill at parenting.

This whole thing is stupid, the kid drew an icon. Next he'll form a band called "Bring me the head of {school principle's name}", he's got a whole semester to while away the time.

A kid with a sharpened pencil is a greater threat.

Ever notice that actual, prosecutable crimes with real world effects (theft, physical assault) are often kept within a school's disciplinary system and often handed minor punishments and BS like this makes everyone go ape-shit?

Re:What's the big deal??!

[Deathanatos]

An IM icon is all the same thing: It's displayed to the world, shown to everyone who some much as has you on their buddy list. But it is a tough line, but I side with the judge. There is freedom of speech, but this is outside of that. The parents further worsened the situation by fighting it... take the kid aside and explain to him why in this day and age you do not draw such things.

Besides, you've got at least show some tact. I had a teacher whose class I didn't particularly like (I didn't hate him - his class was hard because I didn't study enough, simple as that). And we drew a picture of it part way through the year, but without guns, blood etc. The picture depicted a small raft with three stick figures (labeled with our names) on a giant sea, the sea labelled "The Sea of AP US" (the class name). Our boat had a leak, and was sinking. Next to us, atop a battleship/destroyer with smoking guns pointed at us, was a stick figure (our teacher) holding a sword and wearing a very Napoleon-esque hat. In the sea were sharks with "AP Test" written on them, and at the sea floor a treasure chest called "Passing grades" (or something close). Classmate stuck it to her folder. Great picture.

Re:What's the big deal??!

[solune]

Okay, I only read a few replies to this so I don't have a full assesment of the thread.

That being said, I did a whole lot of "evil" writing about a teacher, at 16 in school. It was for creative writing class, in the journal she had us keep. She would review the journals periodically.

She never said anything to me, or my family, or principal until it came time to get the next year's classes in order. Not wanting to take idiot classes, my only option to fill out credits seemed to be her class again next year.

That's when I found out she felt threatened. We had this whole discussion with the counselor and principal (still no parents) whereupon I ended up in "consumer english." She didn't like the nasty things I wrote about her, so didn't want me in her class again.

(This all stems from my incredulity at her insistence there was no contribution to literature from science fiction, refusal to allow a book report on Edger Allan Poe[!] and the countless times I caught her spewing provably incorrect garbage as 'instruction.')

The main difference between me and this case is not columbine, but the Media: despite declining incidence of youth violence, coverage of "local" events in national press is increasing creating a distorted view of real threat potential. For example this case is a local issue, but it's not doubt wormed its way into various other outlets.

Pile on top of that the current trend to consider anyone under 30 as a possible violent actor, the permeation of the word "terrorist" for any crime violent or otherwise, and the general feeling of mistrust of all youth.

The shame isn't the parent's excuses, over-reacting school, pussy teacher or dumb kid that should have known better. It's the hypocricy of the culture in which we now live. We are constantly told to talk out our differances, to find a diplomatic way, but in the end, those that hold the upper hand in diplomacy go to war because they're too scared to act like grown-ups.

Re:What's the big deal??!

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is a difference between a depiction of destroying the school and killing everyone (possibly disturbing, but not a threat) and a stated threat (even if meant in jest)."

So, there's somehow a difference between killing *everyone* and killing one person. Riiiight.

Kill a man, a murderer, kill them all, a god?

Re:What's the big deal??!

[Anonymous Coward]

So the difference is that this poor boy had better artistic skills or better medium for expressing himself through realistic art than you had and that justifies harsher punishment. Did you exclude blood from your drawings because of thought that bloody picture would have threatened your teacher or simply because you had no red pen?

So, because you're an ass

[porkchop_d_clown]

The kid's parents should be allowed to sue the school system for money because they can't cope with the idea that their precious babykins is also an ass?

Schenck v. US

[thescottster]

As a result, the school district sent Aaron's parents a notice of a formal disciplinary hearing and also tipped off the sheriff's department (which declined to do anything, concluding that the icon was indeed a joke). Meanwhile, a psychologist concluded that Aaron did not pose a threat. With the information given, it seems more like a threat than anything else, but the people who actually investigated it seem to think otherwise. The joke must have some background, otherwise the police wouldn't have concluded it was a joke. Likewise, the surrounding circumstances--including the effect of the icon on Mr. VanderMolen and school officials, Aaron's awareness of the school's position that a threat was not a joke, the absence of any factor to suggest that the icon was a joke and the general increase in school violence--establish that an ordinary, reasonable recipient who is familiar with the context of the icon would interpret it as a serious threat of injury. It seems clear that the ordinary, reasonable recipient would have been one of his classmates, and as far as the article indicates, everyone who has become familiar with the context of the icon has concluded that it is a joke. From Schenck v. US Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment, may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The circumstances in which the icon was used were in privacy. (one could argue that the aim icon was viewable by anyone, but why would a school official be chatting with a 15 year old kid?) It was obviously a joke to be understood by the kid's friends. It was by no means yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Re:Schenck v. US

[idonthack]

The

tags are your friends. Alternatively, try

s or the
.

15 years old?

[Britz]

Maybe he was a little immature, but I remember many kids that made little drawings of blowing up their school or killing the teachers that they didn't like. A very good friend of mine wrote a funny poem when he graduated in which he described torture methods for teachers. He liked many of his teachers. This was art and a way to vent some of his fruststrations he had with stupid teachers.

And yet, if you had read the article

[porkchop_d_clown]

You'd realize the judge knew exactly what he was talking about. Laws and legal precedent say that threats are not protected speech no more than slander and libel are. IIRC, the Supreme Court has upheld this.

Board used the wrong language

[kid_wonder]

They should have left out the "threat" part and emphasized the "disruptive behavior" and making the teacher "feel threatened".

I've been through several HR training sessions (like most of us) on Sexual Harassment, Discrimination, etc. It all boils down to "sensitivity training" and understanding that certain actions, comments, etc. can be construed in a way other than you intended.

Send the kid to sensitivity training for 6 months. If that doesn't bore him into removing his icon then he's got a real problem. I mean really, no school for 6 months as a punishment? Hah! Try some boring f*ck teaching you how to respect other peoples feelings for an hour a day.

define all the time

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

I think you're way off base to say "Children do stupid things like this all the time". Kids cuss, they sneak liquor out of their parents stash, they try their first smokes, they might even experiment with sex or practice vandalism. ALL of these things have consequences, some directly by the various things they experiment with.

Kids say mean and hurtfull things alot. I remember a dozen times telling my parents I hated them. (they are now among my best freinds)Obviously I didn't mean it.


If my son ever did anything like this he'd lose his recreational computer privledges for a very long time, he'd personally and publically apologize to the teacher. In the end, his hate and frustration for that teacher would be nothing compared to the contempt he'd have for me when I'm done with him.

Bravo. Thats what should have hapend (up till the contempt for parent thing)

He just drew a picture and passed it around to the clasmates out side of school. In my day I would have gotten sent to the principles office on Monday morning. I'd be in big trouble. But a whole semester? probably not.

from bad joke to real criminal

[dindi]

Great, instead of kicking the guy's ass and a warning, now he is suspended and facing trouble...
Perfect way to put someone in a situation where instead of schooling he might look after other, less educating activities....

Mr English teacher is a jerk as well, instead of confronting the kid and request the icon to be not used, he runs to the school board ... good education for US crowd: whatever happens run to the court, they won't protect you, but you might make some money or cause some harm ...

idiots

Re:from bad joke to real criminal

[geekyMD]

Lets say that some one came after two different people with a baseball bat, one ran away and the other politely asked him to put it down. Who would be the bigger idiot in your opinion?

I'd call the supider one the one who dismisses this riskyness of his situation and boldy gets his head bashed in.

I agree with you, the teacher should have talked to the student before taking it any further, at least with the principal present if he was truely worried, but I'm not sure if I'd call him an idiot.

Re:from bad joke to real criminal

[dindi]

you are rightm it was just my rageagainst the (machine) let's sue and report and punish immediately mentionality ...

on the baseball issue: well an icon in IM and someone coming with the bat is a bit different :) but yes either run or find a bigger weapon :) though from the distance you can still try to negotiate :)

Not necessarily.

[porkchop_d_clown]

The whole zero-tolerance thing has been pounded into teachers' heads so completely that I'm not sure he wouldn't have been suspended for wearing such a button.

Freedom to speak, not to be an ass.

[Carnage Pants]

Coming from a school where a student attacked my calculus teacher and another student with a bat, and received 3 days suspension with no criminal charges, I'm not sure which school is more incompetent. Especially after I got a week's suspension and 2 weeks athletic suspension about a month earlier for drinking at prom. Either way, while I certainly think this kid was an idiot to display such a thing, I don't think it deserves the punishment he got. Maybe a few days suspension and some counciling, as it wasn't actually a death threat.

What I think bothers me most about this case, though, is the increasing willingness by people to use the First Amendment as a rock to hide behind, when it is most certainly not that. The First Amendment gives you the right to say whatever you want. It doesn't give you immunity should you say something you're not supposed to. I can certainly slander someone all I want and say they eat babies and rape women, but that doesn't mean I can use the First Amendment and claim invulnerability when they try to come after me. It's obvious that this idea needs to be reinforced with this kid and his parents, as well as countless others, I'm sure.

The First Amendment is about having the freedom to say whatever your heart desires. But if it's slander, libel or anything else in that vein, it doesn't give you the right to get away with it.

MOD PARENT(S) UP.

[porkchop_d_clown]

Actually, mod the parents as "flamebait"

Re:MOD PARENT(S) UP.

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like you had a set of those parents too.

Re:MOD PARENT(S) UP.

[porkchop_d_clown]

Heh. If I had gotten myself suspended for a semester my dad would have kicked my a** so hard it would still be hurting now, 25 years later.

Not a Matter of Free Speech.

[kodoleth]

To say that a threat is protected under the free speech ammendment is rediculous. It's like saying you have a constitutional right to kill the president because you don't agree with him, and you did it out of protest. If he had said, "I disagree with for , and I think s/he should try to fix it/ change it/ stop doing it by ," he would have been fine. There wouldn't be this whole mess. Maybe the teacher would have improved whatever it was that pissed the kid off! The kid's an idiot. His parents are wrong to try to protect him. I, for one, agree with the judge's decision.

Re:Not a Matter of Free Speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like saying you have a constitutional right to kill the president because you don't agree with him, and you did it out of protest.

See HL Mencken. Also Lone Star Planet (aka A Planet for Texans). The concept of having a right to kill a government official is not an unexplored avenue of intellectual thought.

Ummm... Dude?

[porkchop_d_clown]

Have you ever seen an instant messaging program?

This icon appeared next to every IM he sent for several weeks - so every one of his buddies saw it, probably many times.

Re:Ummm... Dude?

[Vellmont]

Did you actually READ what I wrote, or are you just plain dumb?

What privacy issue?

[porkchop_d_clown]

I didn't realize how many people there are in the world who still have not used instant messaging.

That icon appeared on every instant message he sent to he friends for several weeks.

tag as helphelpimbeingrepressed

[nuzak]

my tag for this article is "helphelpimbeingrepressed". I plan on using it for every one of these lame "fight the power" type of incidents where a student properly gets an administrative action against him for being a complete dickweed. I suspect I'll have plenty of chance to use it again.

Suspending a student for wearing an anti-war t-shirt is censorship, and unacceptable. But sorry kid, this does not rise to that.

Maybe I should shorten it to "dennis", but that's probably a bit obscure.

Re:tag as helphelpimbeingrepressed

[Bob of Dole]

Obscure? on SLASHDOT?

That's like considering Judas to be "a little obscure" on a bible-chat site.

What else does?

[DragonWriter]

Ends never justify means.

Ends are the only things that ever justify a means. What else, really, even could?

Re:What else does?

[voice_of_all_reason]

Justice.

GF Poster's arguement was essentially "a kid who makes a threat of this nature should be suspended because other kids have made threats and then killed people." Defending that this punishment should be meted out solely to prevent a possible outcome is not a just act.

Saying "based on this individual kid's history, by talking to him as well as his parents and peers, and psychological evaluation by a professional (all reasonable steps taken when an adult does this), he should be suspended because the school board is convinced that he will definitely attempt to kill his teacher if he remains here" is far more acceptable.

Re:What else does?

[NoTheory]

Nonsense.

End products are merely an output of the process which generated them. The fact that a state of events currently exists is far less meaningful than knowledge of the history and processes which have generated that state of events. This is particularly significant when you have a single state of events which could have been generated by multiple different processes. Especially when you want to hypothesize what will occur next. If you can tell two processes apart by the data points you are currently looking at, you look at how well each proposed process replicated previous data points.

A harmonious peaceful society can be reached via genocide and absolute annihilation of anyone who disagrees, leaving behind only true-believers, or it can be reached through tolerance and acceptance of others. Just having a peaceful society isn't enough. The process by which you have arrived there is of critical importance.

Re:What else does?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Justice."

Sorry, but, you can't just throw out a loaded word such as that, and use it to back your argument - you've not defined what it means. I doubt that you've managed to define it in universal terms.

However, I could be wrong: If you, as the "voice of all reason", with your 900K+ UID, have managed to do so, you should share it with the world, because millenia has passed, without a definition that satisfies everyone, and we've been stuck with the resulting mess.

So, PLEASE, save us.

Re:What else does?

[Gorshkov]

Saying "based on this individual kid's history, by talking to him as well as his parents and peers, and psychological evaluation by a professional (all reasonable steps taken when an adult does this), he should be suspended because the school board is convinced that he will definitely attempt to kill his teacher if he remains here" is far more acceptable.

So what you are saying is that everybody gets a free pass untill they've done something so that they HAVE a history.

It was *reasonable* for the teacher to have been worried about his safety, given what's been happening in schools the last few years.

It was *reasonable* for the school to be worried about the threat against a staff member.

And it was VERY reaonsable for the school to suspend him for a term to teach him that threatening his teachers is NOT acceptable.

I wish the hell everybody here would stop seeing every bloody court case in the world as part of some plot by some conspiracy to trample the rights of the population under the heel of (your favorite conspiracy group here).

Let's have some perspective, folks. The kid fucked up - BIG time. He threatened a teacher, and got turfed from school for it. Am I the only one here who thinks this is common sense?

Re:What else does?

[hahafaha]

He did not threaten the teacher. He did not come up to him and tell him that he will kill him. He showed no acts of violence towards him. He, from his own home, made an IM icon of his teacher getting shot with an accompanying caption.

Would I get arrested/suspended for posting a similar picture with Bush? No, and neither should the kid.

Re:What else does?

[voice_of_all_reason]

So what you are saying is that everybody gets a free pass untill they've done something so that they HAVE a history.

No, I pointed out that it should certainly one of the criteria taken into account when deciding to punish someone.

It was *reasonable* for the teacher to have been worried about his safety, given what's been happening in schools the last few years.

It was *reasonable* for the school to be worried about the threat against a staff member.

And it was VERY reaonsable for the school to suspend him for a term to teach him that threatening his teachers is NOT acceptable.

When is a broad and loose term like reasonable ever grounds from the government for punishment? This is a state-run school, remember? They could just as well say it's "reasonable" to expel any (insert foreign ethnicity here) student from the school as well.

Re:What else does?

[Gorshkov]

He did not threaten the teacher.

The judge and all parties agreed that there was, in fact, a threat made.

Re:What else does?

[Gorshkov]

The concept of the "reasonable man" goes all through British common law, which you inherited in the USA.

Basically, the idea is this ... in the absence of black-letter law or precedent, when trying to interpret actions or motives of an individual, the judge would ask himself, "What would a reasonable man do?"

Re:What else does?

[chimpo13]

Would I get arrested/suspended for posting a similar picture with Bush? No, and neither should the kid.

You would if you worked under Bush (unless you're Shotgunner Rove). And you'd deserve the punishment.

Re:What else does?

[hahafaha]

Right, but I'm saying that I do not think that such an IM icon constitutes a threat. A threat would be literally coming up and threatening him, and not posting a picture of him getting killed.

Re:What else does?

[jZnat]

Would I get arrested/suspended for posting a similar picture with Bush?

Probably not, but you'd still get a call from the Secret Service. Try a different example.

Re:What else does?

[Gorshkov]

Right, but I'm saying that I do not think that such an IM icon constitutes a threat

And I'm left wondering wtf does an IM icon have to do with it, and how it makes it NOT a threat. it's the MESSAGE that constitutes the threat, not the medium it's transmitted in.

Re:What else does?

[ultranova]

So what you are saying is that everybody gets a free pass untill they've done something so that they HAVE a history.

Yes. People are judged people based on what they have done, not what they might do in the future. Punishing someone because you think they might do something bad is the method of malicious tyrants like Stalin, Hitler and Mao. It is completely unjust.

It was *reasonable* for the teacher to have been worried about his safety, given what's been happening in schools the last few years.

It is not, however, reasonable to react by suspending the kid - it did not remove the threat, quite on the contrary, it made whatever resentment there might be intensify. It would have been reasonable to, say, talk with the kid and determine if he's an actual threat.

And it was VERY reaonsable for the school to suspend him for a term to teach him that threatening his teachers is NOT acceptable.

No, it was not, for reasons mentioned above. Furthermore, he didn't threaten his teacher - he didn't say "I'll kill him", he said "I hate him", and not to his face either, but to his (the kids) friends. The message the school sent is that it's forbidden to express negative feelings about anyone above yourself.

If that's the message you want the kids to learn, fine, but don't be surprised if they still remember it when they're adults and those above them are politicians; don't be surprised when no one speaks up when your precious rights are taken away when you've tought them not to.

I wish the hell everybody here would stop seeing every bloody court case in the world as part of some plot by some conspiracy to trample the rights of the population under the heel of (your favorite conspiracy group here).

I am sure the conspiracy wishes the same ;).

Let's have some perspective, folks. The kid fucked up - BIG time. He threatened a teacher, and got turfed from school for it. Am I the only one here who thinks this is common sense?

The kid fucked up. Kids do that, that's why they are under their parents power. What excuse does the school, presumably lead by adults, have for their actions and lack of common sense ?

After all, a little perspective and common sense would show that a 15-year old kid trash talking to his friends isn't bloody likely to be a threat, and even if he was, the schools reaction would make the threat worse, not lesser.

Re:What else does?

[hitmark]

the big one then is "what defines a reasonable man?".

given how the world is turning into, reason is in short supply...

Re:What else does?

[hahafaha]

OK, I'd get a call from the secret service, they'll make sure I was joking and that's that. In the actual incident, the ``secret service'' would probably be the school administration, since it is they who are protecting the teacher. They'd realize that that the kid was joking and leave it at that. But that didn't happen, did it?

Re:What else does?

[hahafaha]

A threat is when someone says concretely, I am going to kill you. If you show that you are actively taking steps to kill this man, then that's a threat. Saying, KILL $TEACHER, with that graphic about him and not to him is not a threat. It is sick, sure, but not a threat to his safety.

Re:What else does?

[Gorshkov]

Well, the law AND the judge disagree with you. So do I.

Re:What else does?

[Gorshkov]

Yes. People are judged people based on what they have done, not what they might do in the future. Punishing someone because you think they might do something bad is the method of malicious tyrants like Stalin, Hitler and Mao. It is completely unjust.

Conspiracy laws are based on what people MIGHT do
Seatbelt/Helmet/DUI laws are based on what somebody MIGHT do (get in an accident, kill somebody)
Anti-Stalking laws are based on what somebody MIGHT do

You're wrong. Not only do we judge people on what they MIGHT do all the time, it's required as part of the basis for a civil society.

It is not, however, reasonable to react by suspending the kid - it did not remove the threat, quite on the contrary, it made whatever resentment there might be intensify. It would have been reasonable to, say, talk with the kid and determine if he's an actual threat.

RTFA. The kid was not suspended to "remove a threat". He was suspended for breaking a rule in the student handbook, which he did when he threatened the teacher.

Furthermore, he didn't threaten his teacher - he didn't say "I'll kill him", he said "I hate him", and not to his face either, but to his (the kids) friends

He said "Kill $name". In conjunction with the graphic, it was a very clear threat. I thought it was obvious, the judge thought it was obvious, the sheriff thought it was obvious, the school thought it was obvious, and the teacher thought it was obvious. And you don't have ot say something to somebody's face for a threat to be a threat.

The kid fucked up. Kids do that, that's why they are under their parents power. What excuse does the school, presumably lead by adults, have for their actions and lack of common sense ?

The school didn't need an "excuse" - the kid broke a rule in the student handbook, and was punished accordingly. You may think the school's actions were non-sensical .... but the school disagrees with you, the courts disagree with you, I disagree with you, and so do many of the posters here. I think you could argue whether or not the school over-reacted, but I *don't* think you can really argue about whether their actions were "common-sensical" or not.

After all, a little perspective and common sense would show that a 15-year old kid trash talking to his friends isn't bloody likely to be a threat, and even if he was, the schools reaction would make the threat worse, not lesser.

You've obviously missed not only the whole point of my posting, the whole point of the story, and the whole point of the court case.

The suspension has nothing to do with how credible the threat was - THAT DOESN"T MATTER.

The only thing that matters - the only reason why the kid was suspended, and the only reason the court upheld the suspension, was that MAKING THE THREAT IS/WAS PUNISHABLE. Credibility isn't a factor, either in law, or in the application of the rule in the student handbook that was broken.

Re:What else does?

[Anonymous Coward]

Justice isn't an end?

Re:What else does?

[hahafaha]

Actually, the law agrees with me, if you can call the police, the law.

Watch:

KILL GORSHKOV!

Are you feeling threatened?

Re:What else does?

[Gorshkov]

Actually, the law agrees with me, if you can call the police, the law.

No, actually, you can't call the police the law - by any stretch of the imagination.

KILL GORSHKOV! Are you feeling threatened?

No, actually, I'm not. And if I called the police on you, they wouldn't have you charged ..... kinda like what happened, isn't it?
And if slashdot has a rule that said "Thou shalt not threaten your fellow geeks", CowBoyNeal would be on his way now to ban your ass
Oh wait - isn't THAT kinda what happened, too?

Are you feeling silly?

Limiting free speech?

[porkchop_d_clown]

So, you don't believe in slander or libel laws either?

How about laws that ban false advertising?

How about laws that ban hate speech?

Re:Limiting free speech?

[soft_guy]

No, I don't agree with any of the above. I know the courts have upheld limits to free speech, but I think the courts made a mistake.

Fire in crowded theater

[a_greer2005]

Making an icon saying "KILL Mr XYZ" who you see on a daily basis is pretty threatening. If he had said something like "Mr XYZ Sucks" or "is evil!" or even "is a f***ing D**K" is free speach...threats are not.

Fitting all that into an Icon?

[hackwrench]

I can see possibly fitting the concept of blowing someone's brains out into an icon, especially if it's animated, but how do you fit the concept of blowing out a teacher's brains out, and even more specifically an English teacher's brains out into an icon.

Also

[porkchop_d_clown]

what about laws that limit campaign donations? Those limit free speech, too.

Re:Also

[soft_guy]

Yeah, I disagree with those too. Same principle.

Just wanted to say

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

WELL PUT!

I share your opinion.

The kid is dumb, but ... he is still a kid.

Double standard

[MarkusQ]

Bottom line, free speech doesn't give people the freedom to say "kill XXX".

That's quite the double standard, if, in fact, it is the standard.

For example, there have been people running around for years saying "Kill Osama" and nobody bats an eye. Likewise when Bill O'Reilly invited terrorists to attack San Francisco he didn't get suspended. Same thing when Pat Robertson said we should assassinate Hugo Chaves, or just last Sunday when Melanie Morgan said (on Chris Mathews) that Bill Keller of the NYT should be killed for publicly disclosing information embarrassing to the Bush administration.

So, according to you, these things were crimes, not covered by freedom of speech? Why was no one arrested for them? Or even sent home for a semester?

--MarkusQ

Welcome to the 21st century

[Billly Gates]

"I'd even consider remanding the child to protective services as these parents are seriously a threat when they think this is find behaviour worthy of defending in court."

Back when I was in school (I am only 29) I remembered what happened if I screwed up in school and the teacher called my mother.

Boy, was I scared when dad came home and heard about it. I knew what was going to happen.

Today my gf is a school teacher and rarely if ever do the parents ever discipline the kid. Almost always in this day and age the parent will always standup for the kid and attack the teacher for letting it happen. No one believes in responsibility and everything is always someone elses fault. Its like a character flaw if its your own. I wonder if this is why America is so law suit friendly? Its always someone elses fault and its liek this because we raise our kids to think that.

My gf suspended 2 students for threatening her life. One was expelled and a gang leader and came into the school with a knife with the intention of stabbing her as a way to teach her a lesson by suspending her. Meanwhile she complained to her boss who did nothing and then to the principal who got hte kid out. Meanwhile she is now unemployeed for dare defending herself because it made her boss look bad by going around him. Sigh

I do not mean to sound like a dick but teachers get paid too little and put up with too much garbage to deal with trash. She had to get her masters and 2 certifications and $100,000 in debt just to have the priviledge of putting up with gang bangers and death threats for a mere $39,000 a year.

I do find this odd it happened outside of school grounds but still.

Re:Welcome to the 21st century

[Just Some Guy]

Today my gf is a school teacher and rarely if ever do the parents ever discipline the kid. Almost always in this day and age the parent will always standup for the kid and attack the teacher for letting it happen.

In the first month of school last year, my kid was a pain in the teacher's butt. Nothing really bad, mind you - just testing her limits and the teacher's authority. That sort of thing. Well, one day her teacher met me at the fence when I went to pick up my kid up. She hesitantly, nervously told me that she'd had some minor behavior problems and thought I should know about them. I told her that I was very sorry and that it wouldn't happen again, and to please let me know if there's anything else I could ever help with.

Now, this teacher is hardly the beaten down, frazzled type. Nonetheless, she seemed so genuinely relieved and gratified that I was taken aback. To this day, she always smiles and waves whenever we meet, and the other teachers magically seem to have learned my name and greet me pleasantly.

It's kind of sad that something as simple as a parent backing up a teacher's authority is such an unexpected surprise.

Re:Welcome to the 21st century

[CherniyVolk]

I do not mean to sound like a dick but teachers get paid too little and put up with too much garbage to deal with trash. She had to get her masters and 2 certifications and $100,000 in debt just to have the priviledge of putting up with gang bangers and death threats for a mere $39,000 a year.

This is why I refuse to be entertained with the thought of teaching [in a public school]. Becuase, if a child posed a real threat, I'd protect myself regardless of the outcome; death to be included and even probable. The bad thing, is that society would not look highly or even view such a situation with wisedom should a teacher kill a student. But, sometimes they do.... Bach [ the famous composer ] is no less for the fact he attacked one of his students with a sword.

On the otherhand, Columbine could have been prevented. So much, I admit, that those "assailants" were due vengence. We want to blame the parents, the teachers and all that biz. We all saw how no matter what a jock did, he seemed to always get off without a scratch, meanwhile anyone else would get into trouble. Jocks, sad to admit, are "human", so their barbarism is no less in the long run, especially when backed by those around them to push another child to the point of retribution. If someone had treated me as harshly as those kids were treated, I would have shot them too. So, contrary to popular opinion, I do not lay blame on the assailants during Columbine, nor their parents. Instead, I place blame on the two-faced nature of most of society that presents such hypocritical standards that ultimately fuel the frustration in any other person (young or old), and societies blatant tendancy to birth such horrors then shun off their own actions and avoid responsibility (to try to "blame" or say the kids were "wrong"). One thing that will 'piss' me off to the point of pulling a trigger, is someone telling me that I'm wrong for defending myself while being attacked; of all the things I believe in, of all the things I hold dear, EVERYONE has a RIGHT to defend themselves in the face of ANY aggression. What's not really hammered, in Columbines case, is the ridiculous amount of effort the kids AND their parents did to try to do something about the growing social turmoils that were apparent in their student body. So, it's not like they immediately concluded their "defense" was to shoot people, by that time, it was the only thing they could do.

What's sad, is that society didn't see this, and now we have kids getting in trouble for the dumbest things. And, this is just one of those Dumb things that, hopefully, will be laughed at much like how we view the Mc Charthy hearings today; or the Salem Witch Trials... or all the other bullshit, throughout history, that people are chastised over for ultimately, NO SANE REASON AT ALL.

Re:Welcome to the 21st century

[Billly Gates]

Which is why I am glad her contract was not renewed because she had to defend herself and go around her boss to do so.

Its not worth it and she is hopefully going to a better school district with no gang problem next fall. Teachers need authority and respect. I have been assulted on the job before when I was a tram driver for an amusement park. I pinned him down until security hauled his ass to jail. Did I get fired? No I was defending myself. Though he did try to get me fired and sue the park until the cops found he had a blood alchohol level 1.6 if I recall and witnesses said he knocked me ot the ground and threatened me when I told him to leave the park.

Too bad at %95 of the places out there the customer is always right and would not only fire me but probably press charges too even if I am defending myself to teach me a lesson for not being beaten up for 7/hr.

So while a teacher can not hit another student unless attacked he/she must take threats seriously and have an expulsion hearing. Its a shame what happened at Columbine but everyone is entitled to a safe workplace. This is true whether parent, teacher, student, worker, or customer.

Re:Welcome to the 21st century

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy, was I scared when dad came home and heard about it. I knew what was going to happen.


Are you suggesting that acting like a brute and abusing your children is a justifiable means of disciplining your children? Do you honestly think this method is an effective tool in terms of instilling values in your children? Just what values do you think abuse instills in a child?

Re:Welcome to the 21st century

[swillden]

Today my gf is a school teacher and rarely if ever do the parents ever discipline the kid.

My wife was a teacher too (7th grade), and I think you're not seeing the whole picture. My wife's experience was that most parents are very supportive and will take disciplinary action when their kids need it, but that there are a few who either always assume the child is in the right or who simply don't care (she had one mother tell her straight out: "When he's at home, he's my problem. When he's here, he's yours and I don't want to hear about it"). However, it *seems* like hardly any of the parents provide discipline because the kids who get it when needed hardly ever need it, and the kids who never get it always need it.

As a result, 95% of in-class problems are from kids whose parents won't do anything about it, even though probably 75% of the parents actually do care about raising their kids properly.

Or maybe the parents are worse where you live. Dunno. If so, I *really* wouldn't want to teach middle school there.

Re:Welcome to the 21st century

[thatguywhoiam]

I do not mean to sound like a dick but teachers get paid too little and put up with too much garbage to deal with trash. She had to get her masters and 2 certifications and $100,000 in debt just to have the priviledge of putting up with gang bangers and death threats for a mere $39,000 a year.

Man, do I sympathize with that. I have friends who are teachers. And they say much the same thing.

Here's something else to ponder. My mother is also a techer, in a very small school in an out-of-the-way place (something like 400 students total). They have received so much pressure from parents demanding action on various childlike activities that they have simply enforced the logical conclusion: the children are not allowed to touch each other.

Let me mark that one up: The children are not allowed to touch each other at school. Not ever, not for any reason other than sanctioned sports or other activities. It really makes me wonder what that generation of kids will turn out like.

Re:Welcome to the 21st century

[professionalfurryele]

"Today my gf is a school teacher and rarely if ever do the parents ever discipline the kid."

Most of the stupid parents remember that the only way to survive in school was to pick on the other kids and misbehave. Teachers were for the most part incompetant and when they see a teacher, that is what they assume.

Most of the smart kids remember that teachers offered no help to the smart kids when they were picked on/attacked and that the only way to survive was to use whatever means necessary to defend themselves.

School is a hellish war zone. Teachers have always done nothing to correct that and parents know it. It's hardly surprising that teachers are offered no backup when parents remember nearly every time they were punished in school it should have been the other guy.

Re:Welcome to the 21st century

[IamTheRealMike]

What makes you think "abuse" was involved? When I was a kid one of the most effective punishments was to see my normally serene parents or teachers totally flip my lid. When you are 10 the sight of a fully grown adult screaming and yelling in anger is really scary.

Remind me not to fly with you.

[porkchop_d_clown]

Heh.

Right after the first of those "joking about hijacking" cases hit the news I had to get on a plane. Getting through security was an excruciating 30 minutes of biting my lips as hard as I could to stop myself from making every lame hijacking joke that popped into my head..

"oh, wow! Hi, Jack! I heard you were flying to Cuba!" :-P

One Thing I'd Like To Know...

[Bones3D_mac]

Does this teacher have a teenage child or, for that matter, any kids at all? I'm curious as to what experiences he is using to justify getting the school's higher ups involved. Obviously he believes there is a chance this kid might actually kill him... but what is it outside of the kid's icon that actually supports this idea in his mind?

If it turns out that this teacher doesn't have any children himself, does that mean Chicken Little's claims of the sky falling should be taken at face value rather than investigated further before validating it?

Re:One Thing I'd Like To Know...

[gnasher719]

'' Does this teacher have a teenage child or, for that matter, any kids at all? I'm curious as to what experiences he is using to justify getting the school's higher ups involved. Obviously he believes there is a chance this kid might actually kill him... but what is it outside of the kid's icon that actually supports this idea in his mind?

If it turns out that this teacher doesn't have any children himself, does that mean Chicken Little's claims of the sky falling should be taken at face value rather than investigated further before validating it? ''

You are confusing things a lot. The question is not whether the kid is going to kill the teacher or not. The question is whether the teacher could reasonably believe that there is a risk. And if there is a death threat, then even if there is a 99 percent chance that this wasn't meant seriously, then that one percent is a considerable risk. Not anywhere near enough to claim that the kid intended to kill the teacher, but absolutely enough to make it a _threat_ that a reasonable person would have to take serious.

And the court case was not about whether the school reacted in a perfect way. It was about whether the school reacted in a way that was reasonable under the circumstances. The schools reaction was probably at the more serious end of the range of reasonable reactions, but the court said rightfully that it was within the range.

If you made a joke at school about killing a teacher (not a threat because a reasonable person would not think there is a risk of it being carried out), then making you stay at school and writing 1000 times "I must not make jokes about killing teachers" would be a reasonable thing to do. If you go beyond that, then you have to learn there are consequences in life.

The real problem is the in the school system

[74_area(* *)]

Obviously the student had a problem with the teacher. I was involved in a similar situation a few yrs ago in highschool. Sure the student did whatever you wanna call what he did, but the kids that cause problems like these in school today are not born this way. It takes time and torment to bring someone to this point and even more to go further. I don't have a degree in sociology or physchiatry but I made many observations through my education and it's beyond obvious: THE PARENTS AND EDUCATORS ARE FAILING TO DO THEIR JOBS. I'm not trying to single out people or pass blame, this is fact. My mother was a teacher and there are still a good few out there that truly care about their students and make a difference but the majority ignore discipline problems, sometimes promoting them, and do only what they must to make it through the day and get UNDERPAYED at the end of the month. The goverment keeps trying to go after video games and music; IMPROVE THE EDUCATION SYSTEM AND THESE PROBLEMS WIlL TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES. As for this kids punishment, its harsh even unecessary, but that's all the administrators know to do in a situation. Heaven forbid they'd realize that there was obviously some problem between the teacher and his/her students and try to fix it.

Re: The real problem is the in the school system

[Bardez]

Here's my beef with the (public) education system: they want to control students, want to mold them as they so desire and punish them if they stray from this path.

My sob story: I got suspended eight years ago for sending an email to a classmate (at 6:00 PM on a Friday -- well out of school hours) that was opened by said classmate at school almost a month later. It was full of nasty, perverse things which I said I wanted to do to her.

Granted, it wasn't a cool thing to do (although I found it hysterical to fuck with a prim Christian princess who was beyond sheltered until that year and whose father was a pastor), but it had nothing to do with school. I sent it outside of hours, and it was to a Yahoo! account, so it had nothing to do with school, and yet they suspended me. I say that an acceptable action would have been a restraining order or something, but schools go too far with power. Public schools should not be able to do things like that (and I don't think that private schools should, but they have the right to suddenly no accept your money anymore, so whatever) as their sphere of influence penetrates only so far as SCHOOL grounds, time, activities and nothing outside of that.

Just my $.50 (well more than $.02 I'd say).

Re: The real problem is the in the school system

[Anonymous Coward]

You're lucky the school dealt with it. I think the police would have been justified in calling that harrasment, and it was certainly threatening. It sounds like your intent was to shock and scare her for your own pleasure, and you acomplished that. I'm sorry to hear the being suspended (and the years that have followed) didn't really show you what was wrong about what you did.

On a personal note, I hope you never use the term bigot in your life without feeling a little guilty about your own stated history as being a hater of someone because of their beliefs.

Regarding your other point, it seems like it was a school matter if the only reason you had contact with her was because of school. School introducted you two and brought you two together.

My story: a good friend of mine was being continually beaten up by some of our classmates out side of school. Whenever they saw him they'd beat the crud out of him. Why? They didn't like how he looked, and they enjoyed watching him cry. He was never touched at school, so was this a school matter? If I was his parents I would have wanted those bullies expelled. Alas, thats not how it worked out and they ended up moving. I really wish the school had not stuck to the '8am-3pm is our jurisdiction' policy. (And no, the police didn't feel like getting involved, they said it was a school matter.)

Re:The real problem is the in the school system

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have a degree in sociology or physchiatry but I made many observations through my education and it's beyond obvious: THE PARENTS ARE FAILING TO DO THEIR JOBS. By threat of lawsuits from idiot parents and, by extension, assinine school Administrators' policies designed to C.Y.A. against such lawsuits, the teachers are PROHIBITED FROM DOING THEIR JOBS.

Fixed that for ya.

Re: The real problem is the in the school system

[Anonymous Coward]

Similar sort of thing happened at my middle school. One kid took a picture of his cock, and emailed it to one of the girls. She forwarded it (I still don't get that part), and eventually one of the recipients opened it at school, in the computer lab. So, what does the administration do? Of course, they suspend the kid whose cock was in the picture in the first place, totally ignoring the fact that he didn't send it to the person who opened it at school. What was amusing was the big evidence destruction thing. About a third of our 8th grade helped destroy evidence that would have gotten others suspended.

Re: The real problem is the in the school system

[Bardez]

Did you somehow miss my admittance that it "wasn't a cool thing to do" or something? Did you somehow not notice the word "found" (past tense)? I didn't say I still thought it was funny, nor did I claim that it was in any way, shape or form acceptable. I just said it happened and my opinion of it eight years ago. Where do you find in it that the later three years of high school never changed my perception?

And for my other point, her father was a pastor at my family's church, so we DID have contact from outside school. And I said I would have PREFERED the police rather than school, because the police would have been JUSTIFIED. I'm not saying I wasn't lucky, I'm saying the school had nothing to do with it.

As for never using "bigot," I don't know where you think I hated someone because of their beliefs. I didn't hate her because of her beliefs. I didn't even hate her. I was messing with her because I knew I would get a shocked and appalled response. How is that hate? That's just being an ass.

P.S.: Fuck off.

Sad.

[porkchop_d_clown]

In what sense is "KILL MR SMITH" an opinion?

Somehow, I don't think

[porkchop_d_clown]

this kid was lined up for a Harvard scholarship.

There's always community college.

School == Prison in the eyes of the court

[Anonymous Coward]

there are no rights for prisoners or students, so don't expect anything to ever change

they were already mental prisons anyways, what else is new

Eh.

[porkchop_d_clown]

Children are not considered independent citizens - that's why parents can be held legally responsible for their actions.

Re:Eh.

[indil]

You mean parents can be held financially responsible, right? I hardly think a parent could be tried for murder because their kid killed someone.

Bravo

[MattW]

Bravo, what a fabulous post.

We knew that there were ideological battles taking place in the school, we knew that teachers were throwing ideas at us. We knew that we were being graded on whether or not we conformed with ideas that were not necessarily true. We knew that things were complicated. We did not have the language to describe the kinds of things we were intuited. But our brains knew that there was a conflict taking place, and so when our brains reified what we were seeing, it did it in the language of violence: A struggle to get out. A struggle to be free.

This paragraph is worth its weight in gold. And this is why I shudder at the court calling the IM icon a threat. I don't really think anyone can actually believe it was a threat; it lacked the specificity to believe it implied an intention to take action. But frankly, letting it go pokes a hole in the authority of the teacher and the school. And what are schools about now? Conformity. That's the only thing they're GOOD at teaching.

Re:Bravo

[Anonymous Coward]

I can only agree on that.
Why am I suddenly overwhelmed by the urge to listen to Pink Floyd's Another Brick in the Wall?

We don't need no education...

A Sick Society

[spykemail]

Our society is sick, plain and simple. The fact that there's good reason to take things like this seriously is bad enough, but the fact that a 15 year old kid is in trouble for this and has been denied any right of free speech is even worse. I'm much rather have him making a few angry drawings now than taking an AK-47 to class a few years down the road. Mark my words, it's going to get to the point where not even well known comedians can joke about the very issues that need to be joked about the most.

This Just In..

[Bague]

My processes are now suspending INIT for sending them the kill signal!

Re:This Just In..

[XaXXon]

I suppose this makes me a UNIX dweeb, but you can't, of course, catch sigkill. Or sigstop. But whatever.

The kid, but what about the Parents?

[ackthpt]

Given the level of sophistication of the average teenager, I'd say that's a fairly eloquent denounciation of the school system.

What about the education system that produced these parents? I could see a kid doing something like this, but the parents failing to see they had a big part in this they missed and now are contesting in court? Man.. If I had done this when I was in school, I shudder to think what my dad would have thought. It certainly would mean some big changes in my freedoms at home. I work in a school system. I've some idea the sort of shit kids do and get away with. That these parents didn't get the message is more worrying than anything the district did.

Moving forward 10 years...

[geekyMD]

Lets wind this forward a few years.

Say you're 25, your IM icon for interacting with collegues and business partners is exactly the same, except its your boss instead of your teacher. You would definately be fired (expelled, not suspended) and quite possibly arrested.

Why is it that so many people are thinking 'heh I did that too with pen & paper' so its Ok? Why is the teacher an ok recepient for this sort of thing? Please, someone who supports this kids actions reply to this and explain it to me. Why is it ok to disrespect a teacher to such an incredible degree?

Why is middle school, or elementry school not the proper place to teach children the codes of respect and civility that govern our society?

Re:Moving forward 10 years...

[Dr Damage I]

Perhaps because the teacher wasn't the recipient. It was sent to his classmates, most of whom laughed it off (as did the local police, which ought to tell you something right there). Moreover, the school has authority over a child because the government requires children to go to school. An employer on the other hand has authority over an employee because the employee voluntarily entered into an agreement with the employer. Whole different ball of wax.

There's nothing particularly civil about regulating snarky remarks and disrespect in conversations out of school and in private conversation.

BS idyllic past

[foreverdisillusioned]

There are in the past 20 years several accounts of perfectly normal children appearing at school one day to settle a few scores.

I know this is somewhat tangential, but I can't this one slide. This sentiment is very stupid at best and extremely offensive at worst. You need to stop bithely believing whatever the 6 o'clock news tells you and look at the world around you. Violence of all kinds--including youth violence and school violence specifically--went DOWN all through the 90's and into the 00's. The only somewhat remarkable thing about the Columbine era was the violence shifted a bit (though definitely not completely, or even mostly) from black/latino inner city kids to white suburban kids. But teen violence as a whole went down by quite a bit. Yeah, our kids are probably still more violent than they were in the 50's, but we've actually made GREAT progress in the past 20 years, and I'm sick of racist and/or ignorant asshats such as yourself perpetrating the myth that things are just so much worse in "today's world."

P.S. I wouldn't exactly call the Columbine killers "perfectly normal children." Not that I in any way believe in the gross stereotyping of goth-types as sick individuals, but from what I've heard there were plenty of warning signs about those guys.

Re:BS idyllic past

[Gorshkov]

but from what I've heard there were plenty of warning signs about those guys.

There are *always* warning signs .... in retrospect.

Not speaking about Columbine specifically, but what hindsight gives you is the ability to re-interpret past events in the light of subsequent events .... so something that's relativly normal in the average teenager takes on a whole new significance, wether it deserves it or not.

I played D&D as a kid - listened to Black Sabbath, Alice Cooper, etc - I was a loner, and kept to myself a lot - but it really wasn't a warning sign that I was ready to go postal on anybody's ass.

Re:BS idyllic past

[igb]

`Freakonomics' ascribes the huge drop in US teen crime through the 90s to Roe vs Wade. It's an excellent example of a theory designed to offend absolutely everyone: the idea that more disadvantaged women having abortions and therefore fewer delinquent children being born (hence your point about the shift towards more affluent criminals) manages to offend left, right and religious in equal doses. It has the ring of truth, though.

I've not seen an analysis, but a similar bout of hysteria about teen crime in the early 90s followed by its collapse (no matter what the red-tops think) would seem to co-incide with the UK abortion law changing a few years before Roe.

ian

Re:BS idyllic past

[foreverdisillusioned]

You misunderstand. I don't consider the fact that they were loners or goths or wore trenchcoats to be warning signs. I meant more along the lines of keeping shotguns and other weapons in open view on their dressers or putting up websites describing their plans to shoot up the school.

Also, as I recall they said were persecuted by their teachers/classmates. While this is by no means a rare thing, it is still a warning sign that everyone involved choose to ignore because that's just how high school is supposed to be--individualism is crushed and retarded conformist jocks are the only ones entitled to have a social life and if my observations were any indication the staff is directly responsible for this. Hell, society as a whole is directly responsible for this. Out of the dozen or so kids they killed that day, I only ever heard about three--the good Christian girl who was going to grow up to be a missionary, the football star, and the token black kid ostensibly killed out of racism. It was crazy; here the anchors and the reporters and the pundits were doing the exact thing that pissed off the trenchcoat mafia so much--only caring about the stereotypical, conformist teenagers to the exclusion of everyone else.

Should we arrest every hip hop artist now?

[nurb432]

Why yes, yes we should. :)

On a more serious note, what the student did was clearly wrong, and is not covered under the first amendment by ANY stretch of a rational imagination. While im often on the extreme side of supporting 'constitutional rights', this doesn't even come close to be defendable.

I dig ya, man

[ackthpt]

Today my gf is a school teacher and rarely if ever do the parents ever discipline the kid. Almost always in this day and age the parent will always standup for the kid and attack the teacher for letting it happen. No one believes in responsibility and everything is always someone elses fault. Its like a character flaw if its your own. I wonder if this is why America is so law suit friendly? Its always someone elses fault and its liek this because we raise our kids to think that.

This is the great part. Parents don't discipline their kids, they expect the school to do everything. Then when someone in the school does they howl their heads off about the abuse of their child by the people in the school. It's like asking school staff to walk in bare feet on broken glass and then handing them a refridgerator to carry.

I've heard people compare things like this to the signs of the Roman Empire collapsing. I think we are and I think China is going to be the new big kid on the block.

Re:I dig ya, man

[Billly Gates]

I have my own theory on this.

People are used to being customers and have business bend over backwards to their every urge. Now they expect the same of the teachers. Perhaps the parents think they are customers or at least expect to be treated as such and get outraged when they do not make them happy.

I would assume if I were a parent that I prefer the kid to be teached a lesson at school if they are irresponsible and not be bowed down to and passed without doing anything. How does that teach them for life?

School should be treated as a workspace. In effect highschool is so strict with tardiness (or my school was) because our bosses do not want more than 3 or 4 in a 6 month period. After that excused or not it wont matter as our bosses would just get pissed.

I think parents should grow up and stop fucking suing schools into such an obilivian that they can not discipline or do their job because of the threat of armies of lawyers.

English Teachers

[qsqueeq]

Seriously, though, who hasn't wanted to inflict bodily harm after being forced to read Beowulf?

Re:Ah... good plan: a valuable lesson in life

[The Famous Druid]

The kid learned a valuable lesson in life: that actions have consequences. (something his parents clearly don't understand)

He got that lesson cheaply, the prisons are full of people who had to pay a higher price.

tfa: "the general increase in school violence"

[Kaenneth]

School violence has not been increasing, it's just the media sensationalizing the death of suburban white kids (I used to be one myself)

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/Indica tors.asp?PubPageNumber=1&ShowTablePage=TablesHTML/ table_1.1.asp

Violent Deaths at School and Away From School:

Years School Away

1992-93 34 3,584
1993-94 29 3,804
1994-95 28 3,552
1995-96 32 3,305
1996-97 28 2,952
1997-98 34 2,728
1998-99 33 2,366
1999-00 14 2,126
2000-01 12 2,047
2001-02 17 2,036

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_violence

The percentage of students who reported being afraid of being attacked at school or on the way to and from school decreased from 12 % in 1995 to 6 % in 2001.

Between 1993 and 2003, the percentage of students in grades 9-12 who reported carrying a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property within the previous 30 days declined--from 12 % to 6 %

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/fact_book/23_School_Viole nce.htm

Fewer than 1% of all homicides among school-age children occur on or around school grounds or on the way to and from school. ...the total number of events has decreased steadily since 1992-1993 school year...

Reality Check

[drrobin_]

I see a lot of comments about how death threats are unacceptable. I see a lot of comments about how free speech is not designed to protect this. I see a lot of people who have obviously forgotten about high school.

To all the people who question this being a joke: Of COURSE it was a joke! Please don't tell me you haven't done pretty much the same thing. I don't like being lied to. This site is a gathering place for people who screw around on computers, and this "threat" is nothing more than a kid screwing around on a computer. Talk of this post columbine world is melodramatic adult scorn for youth culture, which has been through history, and still is, as constant a human behavior pattern as youth culture's intentionally offensive behavior toward scornful adults.

If I say "fuck you" to someone, does that mean I want them to be raped?

The whole point of the first amendment is to protect the speech that is distasteful, offensive, and disgusting. No other speech needs protecting.

Re:Reality Check

[syukton]

"fuck you" has a colloquial meaning which is widely known and understood. "Kill Soandso" does not have a colloquial meaning, it only has one possible very literal interpretation.

If the teacher believes 99% that it's a joke, then the kid is still making the teacher feel threatened (even if only by 1%) and there's still cause to remove him for the safety of the teacher. That teacher needs to properly educate 20-30 other students, to ensure that they grow mentally and psychologically in healthy ways. If having the threat of death is even mildly suspected, it can infringe upon the ability of that teacher to undertake this aforementioned responsibility.

If you think that "Kill [Person's Name]" can be readily interpreted as a joke 100% of the time, then please make a T-shirt that says "Kill President Bush" and wear it down to a comedy club, and let us known if the Secret Service come by to pay you a visit. I'm 99% sure you'll be fine, do you want to take a 1% chance?

Re:Reality Check

[drrobin_]

You make a good point, but I think this sort of thing calls for some consideration of circumstances. I (personally) don't consider an animated gif to be a threat, or at the very least, not a threat worth punishing. I understand why the school would act as it did; the potential liability issues are serious. I just think that people need to take this particular instance with a grain of salt. Sending an animated gif with "Kill XYZ" to a hitman is different from setting it to your AIM icon, and I think it should be treated differently.

I -do- have beef with the obsession over security, which caused this issue. I personally believe that danger is an inherent price of freedom, and if you don't pay with danger, you can't get the freedom. That's an entire different rant though. ;)

Perhaps I'm just raging against the machine, or perhaps I'm an early twenties old fogie who sees his own past through rose tinted glasses. I can't discount either of those. However, it seems to me that one great sacrifice to the war on terror has been our sense of humor.

Re:Reality Check

[MikeBabcock]

I think the term has become much more coloquial than you might realize.

"I'm gonna kill you" is a joke in many cases, to laugh at. Such as "I told the waiter its your birthday" ... "I'm gonna kill you!"

Context is important.

That said, as another poster pointed out, this is a discipline issue, not a federal crime issue. As such, the school should be allowed to limit speach beyond what would be reasonable for the state to do.

Re:Reality Check

[pacificWebsurfer]

"As such, the school should be allowed to limit speach beyond what would be reasonable for the state to do." and to spell speech correctly if it did ?

Re: % of Children doing ____

[TaoPhoenix]

"Only" 4 and 6% eh? Heck, the ENTIRE collective of one of my Soccer Camp cabins engaged in all kinds of mischief, which works, because they know full well the counselors only "care" erratically.

Those medications were approved because *something* was better than staring the Placebo Effect in the face.

I have my doubts about that particular class of medications. Like all technology, they started out pretty ugly, for desperate situations. There are some alternative compounds beginning to appear.

Those medications are *exceedingly* subtle medications, and in my opinion, there are *thundering* problems with objectivity in every single instance of a person taking one. (The people close to him definitively treat him differently *because* he is taking a medication, leading to a slowly building warped environment.)

--TaoPhoenix

How to discipline your kids

[Frightening]

Enjoy.

Re:How to discipline your kids

[ddddan]

Sorry, Troll, that's just disgusting. There's a way to physically discipline your kids in love without being a monster about it.

Re:How to discipline your kids

[Frightening]

It's dddddelightful to see maddox's satire work so well. He was kidding, but only a little bit.

Maybe kids will take it seriously now.

[OrangeTide]

It's too much to hope that kids will take what they do and say actually matters and that icons of violence against real people is taken seriously by some. Personally I wouldn't care if some kid made death threats to me. It's so unlikely that a kid is actually going to act on these threats. And often kids who do commit murder don't even make a threat, they just go out and kill someone. (doesn't that make you want to own a gun?)

Why is this even in court?

[rollingcalf]

This is a school implenting discipline, not locking up the kid in jail. The school should definitely have a right to suspend him. Otherwise they have no power to implement discipline.

Back in the day if I ever told a teacher at my high school to suck a donkey's balls, I would have been suspended immediately. A death threat (even if only displayed in own home) is worse than that.

Re:Why is this even in court?

[Dhalka226]

A death threat (even if only displayed in own home) is worse than that.

You answered your own question. It's essentially a years-old debate about how far a school's authority should extend beyond its doors. I recall once when I was in sixth grade, I believe, I called some girl a bitch as we were walking home (she hit one of my friends with her bike as we were walking along the sidewalk). We were practically home. It was about three blocks away from school at the time. The next day, of course, I was called into the principal's office. (On another sort of annoying point, I seem to have been called in because the girl happened to be black. Now come on, if it had been race related, I could have come up with a better word than "bitch" yaknow?)

Nothing ultimately happened, but I still question whether the school should have been involved at all. It's the same issue here.

Is a death-threat against a teacher bad? Yes. But it obviously was not really serious. If it had been, when he was handed over to the police, they wouldn't have concluded it was a joke--and he likely would have been expelled, as well, if they truly thought it serious and not a joke (which their own psychologist also determined). After all, if a student was seriously threatening a teacher's life, he would just be more pissed off and more likely to make good on his threats when he came back from a suspension for it. So let's be honest with ourselves: It wasn't the death threat that got him in trouble, it was the age-old "you have to be nice to your teachers" rule in the form of a "death threat."

Assuming I were a student in this school/class, if a friend and I are talking in my room about this teacher and, using your words, I suggest he should go suck donkey balls, should he be able to report me and get me suspended? At what point does their jurisdiction end? Surely they are not the police force of the Internet, are they? I think the proper reaction would be to turn it over to the police--which they did--and then butt out and let them handle it.

They essentially held this kid back because of what both the police force and their own psychologist concluded was a joke. That is well beyond excessive, even if they should have some right to suspend him for something he says on the Internet to begin with--which I don't think they should.

Re:Why is this even in court?

[rollingcalf]

Suppose I was sitting in the mall talking smack about a teacher. And the teacher (unbeknownst to me) is standing a couple yards behind me and overhears it. Should I be suspended? Yes! Why? Because otherwise it sends the message that the school tolerates disrespect of teachers.

Schools have to maintain an environment of respect and discipline, otherwise they can't teach effectively. If they find out about you saying or writing something to undermine that, regardless of wheree you did it, they not only should but they HAVE TO suspend or otherwise punish those who said or did it. If you want to talk smack about teachers and the principal, just make sure they don't find out.

Re:Why is this even in court?

[evilviper]

Schools have to maintain an environment of respect and discipline, otherwise they can't teach effectively.

They need to maintain that ON SCHOOL GROUNDS. Outside of school grounds, you can be as disrespectful and undiciplined as you want.

And even on school grounds, you do NOT lose your rights to freedom of speech, and cannot be compelled to stop critizing school officials.

If you want to talk smack about teachers and the principal, just make sure they don't find out.

If you want to criticize the government, just make sure they don't find out.

Re:Why is this even in court?

[rollingcalf]

"Outside of school grounds, you can be as disrespectful and undiciplined as you want."

It becomes a school issue that undermines the environment of discipline and respect within the school grounds, if that disrespect is directed towards school officials (regardless of where it is done).

"And even on school grounds, you do NOT lose your rights to freedom of speech, and cannot be compelled to stop critizing school officials."

Freedom of speech does not guarantee that you will face zero consequences for what you say, it just means the government can't lock you up or fine you. Disrespect or threaten your boss, in or outside of the office, and you'll be fired. Disrespect your coach or or off the field/court, and you won't play in the next game or two. Disrespect teachers or other school officials, you should get suspended or otherwise penalized within the boundaries of the school system ... but not locked up.

"If you want to criticize the government, just make sure they don't find out."

Criticism != disrespect != threat. And remember we're talking about children within a school, not adults within the larger society. The school needs to have the right to disallow a kid from entering the premises (i.e. suspension).

Re:Why is this even in court?

[robertjw]

Disrespect teachers or other school officials, you should get suspended or otherwise penalized within the boundaries of the school system ... but not locked up.

If it is a public school then it is associated with the government and receives state and federal funding. Suspending the student is depriving him of access to a public service. The Constitution doesn't say ANYTHING about locking you up or fining you. It says the goverment shal make no law restricting free speech. Since the school is a government institution how does free speech not apply - especially when it's made outside of the school.

Re:Why is this even in court?

[graffix_jones]

What a coherent and well thought-out post... you definitely aren't the typical Slashdot poster.

I feel the same way... if both the Sheriff's department and a Psychologist don't feel that this kid is a threat, then why did the school suspend him for an entire semester?

Since it was an English teacher, maybe they should've just had him write an essay as to why death threats are not proper behavior, even in jest.

I still think it's a bunch of crap though... this teacher is obviously so out of touch with his pupils that he doesn't know whether or not one of them might be a direct threat to his welfare. Maybe he should've had a meeting with the student and his parents to at least get a bearing on the situation, rather than his knee-jerk reaction to the whole thing.

I'm so sick and tired of everybody thinking that every student is one step away from being in the 'trenchcoat army' and shooting up their school... when in fact that incident is so statistically insignificant as to be worthless as an example of what 'could' happen when students become disgruntled with the school's authority figures.

I really hope this kid finds a different school to go to, and puts this incident behind him, because it would suck if this were to actually turn him into a sociopath if he already wasn't.

This is obscene

[Dragon of the Pants]

I read about half of this thread, and I just keep getting more and more pissed off. If you think this kid should be punished, move to China, you communist. I understand the law and believe threatening a person IS a crime. HOWEVER, in NO WAY is an IM icon a threat directed at anybody unless you personally IM THAT PERSON WITH THE ICON! It's idiots like that judge that make America a bad place to live.

Should I expect my classmates to report on me?

[MikePlacid]

I have another part I disagree with. Or actually being non-American am just wondering about.

"Further, to the extent that plaintiffs attempt to argue that Aaron's conduct was purely out-of-school conduct, the undisputed evidence establishes that the icon was a threat to kill a teacher at the school, that Aaron circulated it among classmates for three weeks; that he had no reasonable expectation that it would not come to the attention of school officials; that when it did so, it caused a substantial disturbance at the school; that it is reasonable that it should have done so; and that Aaron had reason to expect that it would do so."

Why should I expect my classmates to report on me? Especially if my conduct is an out-of-school conduct? Reasonable expectation is that classmates do not report their peers to authorities at all. It's not cool, it's not being done. And that there is no point in reporting out-of-school conduct to school authorities... Or am I missing something here?

Re:Should I expect my classmates to report on me?

[CrankyOldBastard]

It's your not being American that's throwing you. When I lived in the US I was very confused until I realised that there is no equivalent of "mateship" north of Tijuana and south of Canada. Anyone that breaks the "rules" or deviates from the "norm" should expect everyone else to turn against them in any way.

Conversely, it seemed pretty much that is you toed the line things were pretty sweet. As I came from a country where freedom is real, and not just a set of imaginary rights on paper, I didn't like it very much.

To answer the question, not unless you live in the USA, or Australia if we get another term of Johnny as PM.

You said "Child" ?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

An individual aged 15 is no longer child.

I remember when I was 15 (previous decade), and I wasn't naive: if I were to embark on crafting such an icon, I would have done so while fully aware that the ramifications would not be positive.

"Children" these days are even less naive then they were in the past decade; lot's of them talk shit, and act tough. I say they need to be smacked back to their proper position, and it is a very good thing he got suspended. His parents, although trying to be on his side, made a mistake: they should've assured the school that he would be harshly disciplined, instead of coming up with this bogous freedom-of-speech crap.

They're all idiots (but that doesn't surprise me)

[Roadkills-R-Us]

I agree the kid was stupid. Doing that sort of thing today is going to cause problems.

I agree the parents are stupid. They should have had a long talk with the kid, then a long talk with the school, and tried to come up with a reasonable punishment for the kid.

But the teacher was also stupid. This is gross over-reaction. Fear and trembling, terrified for his six month old? The guy shouldn't be given a drivers license, much less licensed to teach. The school needs to have a long talk with him, as well.

But he'd probably just sic a stupid lawyer on them.

Eminent death of usenet? Nah. But this country is screwed if it doesn't wake up and start thinking rationally.

What is the published school policy on this?

[gelfling]

Or is the school, typically, pulling a policy out of its ass according to its whim? Because otherwise they're assuming a level of responsibility and maturity tantamount to being an adult which clearly a 15 year old is not. For instance schools ban gang signs because we pretty much know what "I'm gonna blast you" looks like. We ban banners that say things we ban all sorts of things. So its not as if the school is unable to make a particular case ahead of time on this issue. Otherwise they're going to hide behind the stupid argument of "Golly geewilligers! We didn't know these young whippersnappers could do that with their new fangled com-poot-ers and rock music!!!!!"

So again, unless the ninnynanner school which seemingly has a policy for everything and everything is covered by a policy - I'd have to let the kid go with a warning and leave it at that. After all, they assert in loco parentis. Isn't that would a parent would do?

Re:What is the published school policy on this?

[buss_error]

Or is the school, typically, pulling a policy out of its ass according to its whim? Because otherwise they're assuming a level of responsibility and maturity tantamount to being an adult which clearly a 15 year old is not.

Were this true, then EVERY fifteen year old would be making creditable death threats.

For instance schools ban gang signs because we pretty much know what "I'm gonna blast you" looks like. We ban banners that say things we ban all sorts of things. So its not as if the school is unable to make a particular case ahead of time on this issue. Otherwise they're going to hide behind the stupid argument of "Golly geewilligers! We didn't know these young whippersnappers could do that with their new fangled com-poot-ers and rock music!!!!!"

I'm constantly suprized and amazed at what children can do. This is mostly a good thing, but from time to time it's a bad thing.

So again, unless the ninnynanner school which seemingly has a policy for everything and everything is covered by a policy - I'd have to let the kid go with a warning and leave it at that. After all, they assert in loco parentis. Isn't that would a parent would do?

Some more than others. Public schools get all kinds. As for what policy they used, I'm sure every school board has a "catchall" policy. "Actions determental to the order and safety of students, staff, or others." Climb down from your high horse. Schools are run to the most common denominator.

If this decision is upheld by higher courts,

[WhatDoIKnow]

it will criminalize thousands of usenet users.

Re:If this decision is upheld by higher courts,

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

No, it won't. The kid isn't being charged with a crime, he's being suspended from school. And rightfully so...

The First Amendment

[rolfwind]

The judges opinion:

"The First Amendment protection of free speech does not extend to certain types of speech, including threats of violence. The Second Circuit has observed that First Amendment protection is forfeited where "the threat on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution.

If this were true, why is the death penalty then legal? Are we not discussing the threat of violence (execution) to someone even if sanctioned by the state?

BTW, I'm not against the death penalty necessarily, just that that comment about what the 1st amendment does and doesn't protect considering the revolution that allowed our government to exist and the 2nd amendment which exists solely to keep the government in check because of a perceived threat of force its citizen could enact against it (well, theoretically 200 years back).

The First Amendment protects ideas, not words

[epaulson]

The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to string any words together you want. What it does guarantee you is the right to express your thoughts and beliefs without repercussions for having those thoughts.

There are no ideas being expressed in "Kill $TEACHER". It does not get First Amendment protection. It's just a threat. The police can investigate it and see if it's credible. If it's credible, then it's a crime. If it's not, then it's just tasteless.

Words can express an idea, like "You will burn in the fires of hell for seeing this movie", or they can just be words, like "there are flames in this movie theater". The First Amendment protects the ideas, not the words. This is why "free speech" applies to paintings, photos, and mimes, even though there are no words involved.

credibility of a threat

[pikine]

I thought "threaten" is a transitive verb: there is one person issuing the claim, another one receiving it, such that the claim has the nature that something harmful is going to be done on the receiving person. And I agree with the court in the sense that the intent of the claim nor the ability to carry out the claim are irrelevant.

Define "threat" to be the claim that is being used for threatening. If the court admits this definition, then unless Aaron explicitly shows the AIM icon to that poor English teacher, then by definition this isn't a threat. This is simply because he hadn't delivered the claim, so the claim is not a threat.

stupid amerikan

[obnoxiousbastard]

You thought that you had freedom of expression while the constution circles the drain!?

You sold that freedom for safety from shadowy boogiemen like terrorist and kiddie porn merchants.

No put on your jackboots and shut the fuck up like a good little fascist, or else.

Re:stupid amerikan

[/dev/trash]

Only voters have rights. 15year old children can't vote.

Re:stupid amerikan

[TomHandy]

You know, as much as I'm pissed about the civil liberties issues going on in the US, I'm kind of sick of this attitude that others seem to have that the US is somehow unique in this regard. There are plenty of examples of other countries repressing free speech rights, etc. (that is, if free speech even is a right that its citizens have), religious freedom rights (muslim headscarf ban in France, for example).

Seriously, plenty of us know the US has a lot of problems right now, but it seems really ignorant to imply that the US is the worst of them, or that the US is the only country where this kind of thing happens.

Re:stupid amerikan

[obnoxiousbastard]

Only voters have rights. 15year old children can't vote

The true mark of how enlightened a society is how it treats political nonentities. In the case of teens in the US, teens have no rights for all pratical purposes and I see this as a budding problem.

If you take a look at other countries with active insurgencies and revolutionary movements, this age group is their foot soldiers. It may also be instructive to at the average age of soldiers during the American Civil War.

It is foolish and dangerous to treat this age group in such a manner. Sooner or later they will wake up and when they do they'll bite you.

Re:stupid amerikan

[/dev/trash]

It's only been that way since the beginning of the Republic ( yeah I know it was 21 and reduced to 18 ). How long will it take?

Re:stupid amerikan

[obnoxiousbastard]

Not true.

Youth rights have been significantly eroded by a string of supreme court decisions spanning the last 25-30 years.

Before these decisions, teens had almost the same rights as adults. After these decisions, teens can be searched without cause, their speech is significantly stifled and they are subject to arrest on a whim (presumably for their own protection).

Granted- teens aren't adults nor are they able to perform as adults. They are treated differently by the courts- by tradition this has been to protect them. Now there are more and more cases of teens being prosecuted as adults.

Something has got to give.

I do not understand

[hahafaha]

I am confused. This was not a death threat. He did not come to the teacher and say, ``I am going to kill you''. He posted, from his own home, a picture of his teacher being shot, with an accompanying caption. It is immoral and sick, sure, but how is it illegal? If I say, Kill Bush, with an accompanying icon, would I get arrested? I don't think so.

Furthermore, a psychologist and the local sherrif dissmissed the claims. Am I missing something here?

Re:I do not understand

[popsicle67]

Election year coverage. magic words

Even worse....

[SvnLyrBrto]

> If we criminalize planning to commit a crime, the next step will be
> thinking about a crime. Or being the kind of person that might
> think about committing a crime.

It's become quite en vogue for schools to have their disciplinary codes include "having knowledge of" as a violation for many offenses. here's an excerpt* from my old college's student handbook, for example, listing some of the offenses for which they consider just KNOWING about something taking place "constitutes equal responsibility and involvement" as those actually doing the wrong.

I was never aware of that particular bit being tested or enforced. But that's right... According to the letter of the policy, even if you decide you want nothing to do with what's going on, you don't take part in any way, and even if you get yourself the hell out of there; you're still considered just as guilty!

(*Caution, it's a rather nastily formatted "view as html" page generated from the original PDF. Just search for "knowledge" and you'll quickly get to the relevant parts.)

cya,
john

Here's the Text of the Opinion

[TubeSteak]

Well put.

I pulled the text of the Judge's Opinion off Lexis-Nexis & it bears out your line of reasoning.

To summarize:
Cause of Action 1: The icon is not a threat, was protected speech & the District's action was illegal retaliation against his protected speech
Decision: The icon is not free speech & was a threat, therefore the first causes of action fails.

Cause of Action 2 & 3: The District & Superintendent "failed to train school staff in threat assessment, which failure resulted in Aaron's suspension in violation of his First Amendment rights"
Decision: The 2nd & 3rd causes of action hinge on the icon being protected speech. It isn't, therefore they also fail.

Quote: "Even if the icon did not legally constitute an unprotected threat, under all of the circumstances discussed above, Superintendent Mabbett could reasonably have concluded that it did and that his actions were reasonable. As such, he is entitled to qualified immunity."
Translation: Even if it was free speech, the first three causes of action fail.

Cause of Action 4: The Board had a duty to conduct a thorough review of all evidence & in ignoring the Sherrif & psych's conclusion, the board "knowingly, intentionally and/or negligently" suspended Aaron in violation of its duties"
Cause of Action 5: The District did not provide timely & adequate alternative education. The family wants damages + costs & attorenys fees.
Decision: Dismissed without prejudice.
Translation: Go refile these two claims in State Court.

Note: Since none of the facts were in dispute, the School District won their motion to have this all decided by summary judgement.

--Text of the opinion below--

MARTIN and ANNETTE WISNIEWSKI, on behalf of their son Aaron Wisniewski, Plaintiffs, -v- THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE WEEDSPORT CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT and RICHARD MABBETT, Superintendent of Schools, Defendants.

5:02-CV-1403

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41017

June 20, 2006, Decided

COUNSEL: O'HARA & O'CONNELL, STEPHEN CIOTOLI, Esq., of Counsel, Syracuse, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC, JONATHAN B. FELLOWS, Esq., of Counsel, SUZANNE O. GALBATO, Esq., of Counsel, Syracuse, New York, Attorneys for Defendants.

JUDGES: Norman A. Mordue, Chief United States District Court Judge.

OPINIONBY: Norman A. Mordue

OPINION: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

INTRODUCTION

Presently before the Court is defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 38). Upon being charged with threatening a teacher, Aaron Wisniewski ("Aaron"), then a student at Weedsport Middle School, was afforded a Superintendent's Hearing pursuant to New York Education Law, 3214(3)(c)(1). The Hearing Officer found that Aaron had circulated through the internet a threat to kill one of his teachers and recommended suspension for a semester. Defendant Board of Education of Weedsport Central School District ("Board") accepted the Hearing Officer's findings and imposed the recommended suspension. Plaintiffs claim that defendants' actions violated Aaron's rights under the First Amendment, 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the New York Education Law.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismisses the federal causes of action on the merits. The Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

Facts

Unless otherwise indicated, the facts set forth in this section are undisputed based on the complaint, defendants' Statement of Material Facts, plaintiffs' response thereto, and the record.

In spring 2001, Aaron, who was 15 years old, was an eighth grade student at Weedsport Middle School ("School"), in the Weedsport Central School District ("District").

Re:Here's the Text of the Opinion

[Bob Cat - NYMPHS]

I pulled the text of the Judge's Opinion off Lexis-Nexis...

Oh, no, not you too! uh... do you have any nude pics of Paris Hilton?

I keed, I keed!

Thanks for the legally obtained info. You saved me whatever L-N would have charged me to find that.

Link to the actual Icon... Bueller - anyone?

[NotQuiteReal]

Is the actual icon available to see?

Ok, I didn't spend too long looking, but if there is a story about an icon wouldn't there be a picture?

No icon, no judgement on it's merits or lack thereof.

And, we all know, I'd be able to fix things in a jiffy, given omnipotent power for a few hours.

I'm going to KILL you, Wind_Walker

[Foerstner]

People say "I'm going to kill you" all the time. People don't generally say "I've got a bomb."

Should Steve Ballmer be arrested for threatening to "Fucking kill" Larry Page and Sergey Brin?

Should this Amazon list be investigated as a death threat?

"Proper threat assessment" is definitely missing here. This kid is not dangerous, and never was. The teacher was a fool for thinking he was being targeted. The school's knee-jerk reaction doesn't make anyone safer. Meanwhile, the school's resources are tied up "protecting" idiots from their own stupidity.

After so many comments...

[cciRRus]

... there is still no sight of the icon! I want it!

More importantly ...

[dj_krztoff]

The little bastard's going to be REALLY pissed now!

Perhaps you should read up on case law

[Anonymous Coward]

You claim that you have "also read the ways in which the Constitution has been applied by the Supreme Court." I'm afraid that I am going to have to dispute that claim; how can you say that and yet still claim that "schools do have the authority to enforce whatever standards they decide are appropriate?" I'm afraid I don't have the eloquence to dispute that claim appropriately, so I'm going to let Supreme Court Justice Abraham Fortas do it for me.

In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views. As Judge Gewin, speaking for the Fifth Circuit, said, school officials cannot suppress "expressions of feelings with which they do not wish to contend." Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749.

Tinker v. Des Moines is considered the baseline for First Amendment school case law in this nation. While there are more restrictions on speech in a school than there are in public, your statements belie a complete misunderstanding of what the First Amendment means.

Re:Perhaps you should read up on case law

[Shadow Wrought]

Quoting the SUpreme COurt and understanding them are different. I will try again. Schools have the capability to discipline a student who threatens the life of a teacher. Do you honestly think that the SC is going to rule otherwise? The Constitution is a living document. It's power and longevity derive from it being allowed to evolve over time. Saying that what is written in the Constitution is the same logic that leads to Young Earthers. You're right that Schools can not be totalitarianistic enclaves, but that doesn't mean that students within them are granted the right to say whatever they please whenever it pleases them any more than you can threaten you neighbor and claim free speech.

If you understand nothing else, please understand this: The Constitution does NOT live in a vacuum.

Re:Perhaps you should read up on case law

[Anonymous Coward]

(This is the same AC. I really need to make an account.)

You're misinterpreting my statement. I claimed that your statement, that "schools do have the authority to enforce whatever standards they decide are appropriate," was completely false, and quoted a Supreme Court decision supporting that. You, in turn, interpreted that as opposing the decision of this judge, a position I never took. I believe that the school was certainly correct to discipline the student, and I also believe that it probably had the legal authority to do so. However, schools do not have complete authority to do whatever they will with their students. You're arguing against a position I would never be foolish enough to take.

Re:Perhaps you should read up on case law

[Shadow Wrought]

So at the end of the day, I'm not as far afield as I think you thought I was I was, and I misinterpreted your last post as being far more extreme than it was. Guess that makes us both moderates;-)

I would encourage you to get an account, too. I'd like to read more of what you have to say.

bastard should be shot

[Anonymous Coward]

with parents like this , no wonder students do poorly

Little bit of free speach right here

[ZakuSage]

The kid at home should be free to say what he wants or put whatever he wants on his IM. It's the new USA; people don't have the right to say what they want, or do what they want anymore. This kid did nothing harmful, and represented no threat at all. Friends of mine draw pictures of fetuses killing themselves and hand them in art portfolios in my school system, but thank our lucky maple leaf we live in Canada, where people still have some god damn rights. Fuck the American government, fuck the USA: your county's fucking screwed.

Re:Little bit of free speach right here

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least we know how to spell "country".

Re:Little bit of free speach right here

[Anonymous Coward]

At least we know how to recognise and accept a typo when we see one, rather than using it as justification to insult people.

Re:Little bit of free speach right here

[Trinn]

I'd mod you up except I fear my government might not like that.

I agree that the USA is in some real serious trouble at the moment, and I really hope that we can extricate our collective head from our collective ass.

I want to take a moment to point out though a disturbing trend in Canada as well...I know the public perception is that the Liberal party was corrupt and that's why the Conservatives have power, but given things like the amount of money flooding into Canada from the USA in support of the Conservatives...I'm a bit wary to take it at face value. Anyhow, the problem is, corrupt or not, the Liberals were more...well, liberal...and under the Conservatives, many of the same bullshit things happening here in the USA will be coming to Canada. I hope this does not come to pass, as really Canada, in many ways -is- a shining example of freedom. (however I've heard bad things about your libel laws)

Two areas of special concern to me are GLBT rights (the Conservatives really want to break those down) and health care (again, if they actually had enough power to get their way, they'd dismantle the public health system). Obviously I'm not a Canadian citizen, and I don't have 100% of the facts, so feel free to correct me.

Re:Little bit of free speach right here

[ZakuSage]

Canadian politics are different then American politics. You can't have two extremeist parties. Here, moderates actually get elected. Liberals are center-left, and the Conservatives are center-right. Because of this, if the tories ever get a majority, I doubt they'd remove Gay marriage. They're just putting it to a vote in the house of commons because their party line firmly states that courts should not have the right to decide the laws in Canada.

As for public health care, there's a common misconception in the rest of the world: our system doesn't work. It's full of problems like exceptionally long wait times (months for VITAL services). The Liberal's plan was essentially to throw money at it, but the problem goes a lot deeper then that. There needs to be actual reform to our healthcare system because a lot of doctors are leaving Canada for higher wages in the US. It's not that they want to abolish total medicare, that would be Ralph Klein and the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta. Maybe if their website actually worked and wasn't so flash ridden I could give you the details.

Besides, if they hadn't come to power, Canada might be no more very quickly. Alienation of the western provinced was quickly becoming a huge issue in Canada, where those provinces basically had no power to elect (once the vote reached Ontario, it was basically over, previously the Liberal party's main base of power). We could have seen a crisis bigger then Quebec seperation.

Re:Little bit of free speach right here

[Oligonicella]

People never did have the right to say or do what they want. Not in the U.S. or Canada. Try educating yourself on your own laws. You think in Canada you can slander and libel someone with impunity? You think you can steal from or beat someone?

Either use language that actually expresses what you think or get some education. Your statement is false and ignorant.

The kid has problems

[sl4shd0rk]

So did eric harris and dylan klebold. do you suppose if this icon appeared in a columbine school district it would be considered a joke as well? Of course not. It's really a form of terrorism if you get right down to it.

Oh the list I carried

[popsicle67]

I graduated in 1985, long before any of this craziness started, but I had a list I carried around of people I would gladly strangle and laugh into their face as they choked their last gasp. It was two pages long in a school with 600 student and faculty so I had agood majority of them on that list with new members added daily. I learned that carrying that much anger was not healthy and revenge that left the person alive and wondering why God was so pissed at them was infinitely more satisfying. That and the top 6 a**holes on that list all got killed within 4 months of graduation in various accidents that I had nothing to do with but still shook me to the core. I found out that maybe all of this wanting to kill people was not for me, death was too final.

Have a picture?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone have a picture of the school officials involved? I want to shop it in crosshairs onto http://www.lizmichael.com/rooftops.jpg and see if they'll run around screaming.

So we suspend him instead of giving him counseling

[fatalfury]

...which might just shake him up more than the suspension. Counseling still carries a stigma in high school (or is this middle school? it's been so long...), so if he's sitting in the guidance counselor's office once a week for the rest of the year, and all of his friends know it, he'll probably stop making those icons (or at least stop showing them to people FFS). And it might even do him some good in the process.

No more scissors!

[Jerry Smith]

Good grief, if I saw a kid running through the halls with scissors, AND the kid has displayed death threats toward a specific person INSIDE the school, one MIGHT think that that kid was going to stab that person! No more scissors in schools! Think of the children!!

Good thing John heartfield was not alive today

[AgNO3]

because instead of his incredable import art work he would probably be in jail just where the Nazi's wanted him to be. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/davepalmer/cutandpast e/heartfield_big5.html Do we know this teacher was not a total ass? We do know that the police and a doctor say he was of no threat. Well maybe he will start his run from the opressive authority that heartfeld (change his name to heartfield to be less jewish) Maybe these parents keep a very strong grasp on there son and new exactly what he was doing. Do you know other wise? I would much rather see experssions of anger then no expression that later just manifest and actualy violence. So unless you know what the parents knew for fact. The LAW and DOCTORS found him to be NO THREAT.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Flamebait my ass

Anyone here a teacher?

[SofaMan]

A lot of people on this thread are saying things along the line of "how is suspending the kid for a semester going to help him?"

I'm a teacher, and regardless of the merits of this particular case, when a student is suspended for a length of time like a term or a semester, it generally ceases to be about the student in question. It becomes about maintaining the integrity of the learning environment for everyone else, including staff.

There are students who can become so disruptive to the learning environment in a variety of ways that those students need to be removed so everyone can continue learning. Some kids have to be written off so everyone else can get on with it.

Getting to the merits of the case itself, this was not a general phrase uttered in the heat of the moment like "I wish teachers would die" - this was something premeditated (he had to create the icon, and made it available for three weeks), directed at particular individual. The extent to which the school overreacted is arguable, but the principle is sound. This is not an issue of free speech, since with any speech context is everything.

Re:Anyone here a teacher?

[Asklepius M.D.]

The disproportionate sacrifice of an individual for the sake of the whole is a poor lesson indeed. Our society is based upon individual rights, and the punishment is supposed to fit the crime. The kid did indeed deserve to be punished, but not for some abstract notion of environmental integrity. He erred by using an obiously inflammatory statement without any redeeming contexual substance in a forum where he could reasonably expect adverse consequences. This is akin to poking a dog with a stick - one can reasonably expect to be bitten. This student should have been given counseling on socially acceptable means of expressing anger and frustration. He should have been directed to "teach" other students about why something like this is unacceptable. He should not have been expelled. We supposedly send wrongdoers to a "corrections" facility so they can be "rehabilitated" and reintroduced to society. How is expulsion going to correct or rehabilitate this student? His behaviour is obiously condoned by his parents, and as such is far more likely to be swept under the rug at home, while counseling and the like would keep this from happening. Additionally, he'll be a hero when he gets back. The school has created a martyr and probably a future troublemaker by taking the easy way out.

As for the "integrity of the learning environment"......I remember being a student and finding blatant factual errors in the teaching material. I remember calling the teacher's attention to these errors (with references) after class away from the presence of other students and being told not to repeat my actions as they "questioned the course's integrity". The learning environment has little to do with learning and everything to do with conforming. Learning comes from trial and error. Learning comes from making mistakes. Learning comes from curiosity and experience. Learning does not come from rote memorization, reading on topics that are uninteresting and unrelated to whatever one IS interested in, or taking and retaking test after test after test. Learning is an outlook on life that has nothing whatsoever to do with the classroom. Aside from a few basic math skills, I can recall nothing that I learned in school that I use to this day. School taught me to avoid bullies, to keep my mouth shut, to walk in a straight line, to follow a bell. School did not teach me about the world. I learned that at home, through coversation, reading, watching news, interacting with people who disagreed with me and with whom I disagreed. Knowledge of trivia is not knowledge. Being able to defend one's beliefs and opinions, and being open to changing these in the light of new experiences is knowledge.

Re:Anyone here a teacher?

[SofaMan]

How is expulsion going to correct or rehabilitate this student?

Other than giving him time to reflect, probably nothing.

Schools have limited resources, and often those resources (particularly in staffing) are disproportionately directed at students for whom the potential postitive outcomes are limited, meaning those students who do the right thing get screwed. Everybody deserves a go at school, but there have to be limits.

Governments are rarely prepared to cough up the extra money required to ensure that everybody has maximum opportunity to succeed, so it ends up as a bit of an "educational triage" situation quite often, and you really do need to work in a school on a day to day basis to appreciate the extent of this.

I have no qualification to speak to your schooling experience, but I teach in Australia rather than the US, where the educational climate is quite different. While not as well-resourced as we would like, is sounds like our school system functions quite a bit better than yours does.

But if?

[dfoeink]

If the teacher had been seriously injured by this student, and this incident had gone unchallenged by the school, can anybody truly say that their first thought on this would not be that of warning signs clearly had been ignored by the school? The fact this came to the attention of the school meant it absolutely had to react.

What's the world coming too?

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA: It is well-established that lack of intention or ability to carry out a threat is not relevant.

Anyone else think this is a bit effing stupid?

All wrong!

[graviton137]

You misunderstand: It was German and said "DIE TEACHER DIE".

That's almost right

[porkchop_d_clown]

There have been cases where parents were thrown in jail for failure to control their children, but they're rare.

Indeed I did.

[porkchop_d_clown]

I also read the article. If you had passed English you would know what an "Instant Messaging Icon" is.

By the way - great job insulting people who were only answering the question YOU ASKED.

Bone head.

Re:Indeed I did.

[Vellmont]

Just plain stupid it is. Thanks for clearing that up.

Okay. I can respect that.

[porkchop_d_clown]

I don't know that I agree with you - but you've put some thought into it. Sorry for underestimating you.

Realistic?

[Laebshade]

If you and your friend are drinking one night and say something like, "Yo, we need to pop a cap in Mr. X's ass." and one of you goes out and purchases a deer rifle - an overzealous DA can press charges and you'll probably be convicted by the average jury .... even if the conversation wasn't serious and you bought the rifle for a deer hunt.

As one of my English teachers in high school said (poorly paraphrased), "We can sit here and talk about what if's all day, but at the end of the day, none of it ever happened."

RE: Punishment

[Dudukain]

So...their policy is that if a kid threatens the school as a joke, their response is to GIVE him a reason to hate the school?

The student is a loser. It's probably due to the thing schools teach students nowadays about danger, which is: "If your friend does anything out of the norm, he/she (almost always he, because most teachers are biased...) is a dangerous mentally disturbed loner who can easily acquire firearms and other weaponry.

The teacher is overreacting. Kids say things like "I'm gonna kill you" or "I'm gonna beat you up" on a daily basis. If a 10-year old can deal with it, a 20+ year old should to. When I was in school, I got passed pictures of me being run through with a sword. It's not THAT big a deal people...

Re: Discipline

[Dudukain]

You say he was probably an awful student who cursed at his teachers? Nope. Read the article he had "no previous disciplinary problems" Bottom Line: Human Being > Ape > Teacher > Slug > Student Any questions?

Apples and oranges my friend

[Anonymous Coward]

"Friends of mine draw pictures of fetuses killing themselves and hand them in art portfolios in my school system"

You are talking about a totally different form of expression there than what happened with this kid Aaron. While fetuses killing themselves might be "edgy" or "daring" or whatever the fact remains that said imagery is not offering up any kind of specific threat against an actual person. They are the imagined creations of the artists. What this kid did was put a message out to the world, via his IM icon, which read "Kill Mr. so and so" (a very real and identifiable person) along with a graphic representation of the act being carried out.

As for all of you who say "...the schools should have no jurisdiction on things done outside of school..." then I say even though Aaron was at home when he made/used this message it very much involved the school and the results carried over into the school environment. If a student makes such a threat it does not matter that it was made off campus, the whole basis of their relationship is founded on the time spent at school as student and teacher, therefore it extends to that setting as well. So, if a teacher is afraid for his/her safety as a result then the student is out of there as far as I am concerned.

Even though Aaron had no previous disciplinary problems prior to this he got what he deserved for this incredible act of stupidity and lack of judgement. Hopefully he learned something from all this.

As for what it concerns your friends and their art portfolios, tell them to whip up a piece that reads "Kill Mr./Ms. teacher of that class" with a graphic portrayal of how it should be done and submit that. I would be interested to see how well that goes.

It is over the line.

[Anonymous Coward]

Many things are protected by the first amendment like burning the flag for instance. However this icon goes to far. The depiction of violence in such a way is pushing the evelope but what puts it across the line is the fact that one person was singled out and with threat to do harm. Any writing or verbal communication of doing harm to specific individuals is illegal.

Now if he had not put any writing on the icon, then he would have been okay.

What the hell does this do on this site?

[vuo]

What the hell does this do on this site? If it were a scribbling in his school notebook, it'd be ignored by Slashdot. But once it's an ICON IN INSTANT MESSAGING it's Slashdot material. What the tuck, does the involvement of a computer somewhere in the process of committing a crime make it nerdy? D'oh, return to the nineties. I would suggest ignoring this Scheissendahl and returning to coding.

You've win this thread!

[David Rolfe]

Ding ding ding...

DougLorenz (964249) declared the winner by unanimous decision with post http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=190026&cid =15640396! Well done.

All other harping may now cease. If you want the school rules changed, write them a letter or vote for a new school board that is in line with your desires.

Er, You've won this thread! (nt)

[David Rolfe]

I make some retarded typos sometimes. Sheesh.

You know who I blame?

[/dev/trash]

The 18 19 and 20 year olds who DON'T vote.

Re:You know who I blame?

[obnoxiousbastard]

Know why?

Have you looked at the candidates lately?

My ballot looked like the f-ing special olympics only those idiots weren't very special.

Really a threat??

[Sagachi]

I'm not sure I understand whether this was really a threat. How many people go around saying "Man I wish he was dead" or "I wish were dead!" That doesn't mean everyone's going to run around committing suicide or murder. There's a tremendous difference between someone saying "I'm going to kill that person" and "I wish that person would die". Nothing in the article suggested this kid was planning, talking about, or even thinking of doing anything at all. Bad taste is not (usually) a crime, and apparently the local law enforcement realized that. On top of that, pop culture in the United States is extremely violent. People witness murder, rape, and various violent acts all day and just shrug it off. This kid has probably seen more than his share of violence, and maybe the family is really into bad action movies or violent cartoons or whatever. IMHO that's not healthy, but that kind of environment is more or less the norm, and it's no wonder he would imagine violence to express whatever feelings he had. Of course he did something stupid, and in very bad taste, and more than anything, probably just did it for attention from his classmates. Kids are like that, they want attention and push your buttons. That doesn't mean he was going to run out and shoot anyone. If the teacher was freaked out, that's somewhat understandable. What's more understandable, though, is that apparently the kid, the parents, and local law enforcement know the difference between fantasy and reality. The teacher, and the school, need to get a grip on reality and realize that while violence is a remote possibility, what kids usually do is just push your buttons for attention and that's it. Sure, it needs to be taken seriously - the kid needs to understand why it's in bad taste, inappropriate, could get him in jail, etc. However, while having a stupid, obnoxious, violent icon says something about you, it doesn't mean you're going to run around killing people.

School is more daycare than we'd care to admit.

[1iar_parad0x]

Let's face it. Public schools are large lumbering institutions. I learned very little there. Sure, the governor's school and advanced courses are usually pretty good, but the average public school education is filler at best. The modern day educator is afraid of legal suits, sexual harrassment charges, excessively disrespectful behavior by students (you know it's true), and a largely hostile collection of parents. Schools respond by imposing draconian rules and excessive punishment for relatively petty offenses. It's truly an administrative mess. Why congress isn't debating THIS 24/7 is truly mystifying. Unless I'm dead broke, I don't plan on sending my kid to a public school.

niether here nor there

[jessicalandy]

In some places the kids may have recieved some real pal time and counselor talk to read the sign of agression and learn more about it. Give the opportunity to get out repressed feelings, and learn a new way of dealing with anger management. Teachers seem to fear guns more today than ever I suppose. In some places I guess they could just expel the kid and let the parents (undoubtably not qualified psychologists) deal witht he problem, which would in turn create a new one.