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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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

[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".

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.

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.

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

[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.

Indeed.

[raehl]

Clearly the court prefers that you don't threaten people before you kill them.

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.

"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?

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"!

"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?)

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: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: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.

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: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.

This Just In..

[Bague]

My processes are now suspending INIT for sending them the kill signal!

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.

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.

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").