Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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."
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.
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.
School violence has not been increasing, it's just the media sensationalizing the death of suburban white kids (I used to be one myself)
a tors.asp?PubPageNumber=1&ShowTablePage=TablesHTML/ table_1.1.asp
e nce.htm
...the total number of events has decreased steadily since 1992-1993 school year...
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/Indic
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_Viol
Fewer than 1% of all homicides among school-age children occur on or around school grounds or on the way to and from school.
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.
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.
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").
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.