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?

[voice_of_all_reason]

Ends never justify means.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[jibjibjib]

Kill CowboyNeal!

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?

[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

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

[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

[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?

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?

[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.

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".

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?

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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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.

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....

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right, violence should not be condoned. It is a good thing a picture and some words are not violence.

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?

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.

"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?

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: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: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.

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.

Sad.

[porkchop_d_clown]

In what sense is "KILL MR SMITH" an opinion?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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: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?"

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.

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.