Student Suspended Over IM Icon 652
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.'"
what did he expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
from the court's opinion in tfa:
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? (Score:2)
Re:what did he expect? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:what did he expect? (Score:3, Interesting)
(I'm assuming an IM icon is viewable by the "public")
Re:what did he expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:what did he expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:what did he expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
It's a threat anyway - all the investigation will do is determine if it's serious or credible.
Re:what did he expect? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
"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? (Score:3)
Re:what did he expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
BS idyllic past (Score:3, Informative)
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. T
Re:what did he expect? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
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, scre
Re:what did he expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Here's the Text of the Opinion (Score:4, Informative)
I pulled the text of the Judge's Opinion off Lexis-Nexis & it bears out your line of reasoning.
To summarize:
Cause of Action 1: The icon is not a threat, was protected speech & the District's action was illegal retaliation against his protected speech
Decision: The icon is not free speech & was a threat, therefore the first causes of action fails.
Cause of Action 2 & 3: The District & Superintendent "failed to train school staff in threat assessment, which failure resulted in Aaron's suspension in violation of his First Amendment rights"
Decision: The 2nd & 3rd causes of action hinge on the icon being protected speech. It isn't, therefore they also fail.
Quote: "Even if the icon did not legally constitute an unprotected threat, under all of the circumstances discussed above, Superintendent Mabbett could reasonably have concluded that it did and that his actions were reasonable. As such, he is entitled to qualified immunity."
Translation: Even if it was free speech, the first three causes of action fail.
Cause of Action 4: The Board had a duty to conduct a thorough review of all evidence & in ignoring the Sherrif & psych's conclusion, the board "knowingly, intentionally and/or negligently" suspended Aaron in violation of its duties"
Cause of Action 5: The District did not provide timely & adequate alternative education. The family wants damages + costs & attorenys fees.
Decision: Dismissed without prejudice.
Translation: Go refile these two claims in State Court.
Note: Since none of the facts were in dispute, the School District won their motion to have this all decided by summary judgement.
--Text of the opinion below--
MARTIN and ANNETTE WISNIEWSKI, on behalf of their son Aaron Wisniewski, Plaintiffs, -v- THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE WEEDSPORT CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT and RICHARD MABBETT, Superintendent of Schools, Defendants.
5:02-CV-1403
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41017
June 20, 2006, Decided
COUNSEL: O'HARA & O'CONNELL, STEPHEN CIOTOLI, Esq., of Counsel, Syracuse, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC, JONATHAN B. FELLOWS, Esq., of Counsel, SUZANNE O. GALBATO, Esq., of Counsel, Syracuse, New York, Attorneys for Defendants.
JUDGES: Norman A. Mordue, Chief United States District Court Judge.
OPINIONBY: Norman A. Mordue
OPINION: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
Presently before the Court is defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 38). Upon being charged with threatening a teacher, Aaron Wisniewski ("Aaron"), then a student at Weedsport Middle School, was afforded a Superintendent's Hearing pursuant to New York Education Law, 3214(3)(c)(1). The Hearing Officer found that Aaron had circulated through the internet a threat to kill one of his teachers and recommended suspension for a semester. Defendant Board of Education of Weedsport Central School District ("Board") accepted the Hearing Officer's findings and imposed the recommended suspension. Plaintiffs claim that defendants' actions violated Aaron's rights under the First Amendment, 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the New York Education Law.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismisses the federal causes of action on the merits. The Court declines to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismisses them without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Facts
Unless otherwise indicated, the facts set forth in this section are undisputed based on the complaint, defendants' Statement of Material Facts, plaintiffs' response thereto, and the record.
In spring 2001, Aaron, who was 15 years old, was an eighth grade student at Weedsport Middle School ("School"), in the Weedsport Central School District ("District").
Re:what did he expect? (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:what did he expect? (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite. Conspiracy requires an overt act in furtherance of the crime. If you do nothing but plan, you're safe. If, however, you take a concrete step in addition to planning, such as obtaining weapons or other equipment, then you are guilty of conspiracy. It doesn't take an awful lot, but the need for an overt act is intended to prevent prosecution for mere bs-ing and to make it worthwhile to back off from a plan even if it is serious.
Re:what did he expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 else does? (Score:3, Interesting)
So what you are saying is that everybody gets a free pass untill they've done something so that they HAVE a history.
It was *reasonable* for the teache
Re:What else does? (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, the idea is this
Re:what did he expect? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:2)
What's so special about icons that they should be treated differently from any other form of image or text, other than the fact that you're directly identifying yourself with it, which would seem to strengthen any identification of the icon's message with the person behind it.
Re:what did he expect? (Score:2)
I'm not sure I understand how it being an icon negates it being a threat. An icon is "a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol of something."
not the funniest joke (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]).
From the article:
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:
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 (Score:2, Troll)
Re:not the funniest joke (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
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,
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:not the funniest joke (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Back the Judge? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:2)
Re:Back the Judge? (Score:2)
O rly?
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."
Doesn't say anything about not abridging political speech. It says all speech. Of course in practice, speech which falls in the libel or threat category gets you punished. I'm just saying those laws are unconstitutional as the first amendment is written.
Re:Back the Judge? (Score:2)
Re:Back the Judge? (Score:2)
Re:Back the Judge? (Score:2)
Given the level of sophistication of the average teenager, I'd say that's a fairly eloquent denounciation of the school system.
Speech shouldn't be any less free if it's clumsy.
If English allows you to say "Kill your Television" even though it's something that isn't alive, why shouldn't it allow you to say "Kill your Teac
Re:Back the Judge? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 s
Welcome to the 21st century (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
In the first month of school last year, my kid was a pain in the teacher's butt. Nothing really bad, mind you - just testing her limits and the teacher's authority. That sort of thing. Well, one day her teacher met me at the fence when I went to pick up my kid up. She hesitantly, nervously told me that she'd had some minor behavior problems and thought I should know about them. I told her that I was very sorry and that it wouldn't happen again, and to please let me know if there's anything else I could ever help with.
Now, this teacher is hardly the beaten down, frazzled type. Nonetheless, she seemed so genuinely relieved and gratified that I was taken aback. To this day, she always smiles and waves whenever we meet, and the other teachers magically seem to have learned my name and greet me pleasantly.
It's kind of sad that something as simple as a parent backing up a teacher's authority is such an unexpected surprise.
Re:Welcome to the 21st century (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
LOL INTERNET (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a witch hunt, in this post-Columbine world! Where's Jon Katz when you need him in this post-Columbine world?
But seriously, saying that the icon was "on his home computer" is like saying that prank calls are okay because "what I say in the privacy of my own home is my business".
Re:LOL INTERNET (Score:2)
It's like calling one person to talking about pulling a prank on someone else.
wait, it's not like that at all either.
It's like posting a discussion of a prank on a public real world bullitent board, then the person who the prank talks about finding out.
Re:LOL INTERNET (Score:2)
It was obviously a joke (rather said a pathetic attempt of a joke), as most colleagues of this kid and even the POLICE initially considered, and as further investigations proved. Bottom line, it was NOT a threat, and was not perceived as a threat by anybody who has even just some minimal background information.
Then, after a while (3 weeks) one of the kids in his class (probably when just having been pissed off by this Aron character) brings t
Re:LOL INTERNET (Score:3)
Um... ok (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Indeed. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Um... ok (Score:2)
If my son ever did anything like this he'd lose his recreational computer privledges for a very long time, he'd personally and publically apologize to the teacher. In the end, his
Sounds about right (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like the court and the school district got this one right. Not sure what the controversy is.
Re:Sounds about right (Score:2)
Why is threatening illegal? (Score:2)
I'd think if you had a plan to hurt someone, the authorities would like to know about it. Seems they'd rather stick their heads in the sand.
First Amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First Amendment? (Score:2)
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The amendment even mentions the right "peaceably to assemble". Even thoug
Re:First Amendment? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:First Amendment? (Score:2)
Then again he wasn't found guilty of any crime, just that the school was within it's bounds for the suspension. Considering that the effects of his activities at home did spill into the classroom and were thus the realm of school authority, some punishmen
Re:First Amendment? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I blame the parents (Score:5, Insightful)
I say take the kid and his parents out behind the woodshed and give them a lesson in manners they'll never forget.
Re:I blame the parents (Score:2)
You would be right(in essence) if these matter were left up to the parents, but they're not.
Was it bad manner? yes. Was it a threat? no.
The world is different. (Score:2)
Your dad would have giving you a good hiding (whatever that is), you would have learned your lesson, and that would have been the end of it. Now stupid kid mistakes can fuck up your whole life, and parents, making the decision between letting y
Let me get this straight.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not? (Score:2)
The point isn't so much how the threat was presented, it's that the behavior was completely innappropriate. There's a line between 'cute' and 'stupid', and this falls under stupid. Depictions in any form of a gun to somebody's head, not to mention the text, shows that the kid need to get his head checked.
Not perhaps an animated icon of the teacher being hit by an anvil would be more amusi
Re:Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Let me get this straight.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah... good plan (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Conditioned for Obedience (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Sad. (Score:3, Insightful)
After reading several postings... (Score:2)
I have to disagree with this ruling (Score:2)
Re:I have to disagree with this ruling (Score:3, Interesting)
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 s
Teenagers (Score:2)
This is not protected speech (Score:5, Interesting)
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
oh come on (Score:4, Interesting)
"Another pop quiz? I wish the teacher were dead."
or say:
"I want to kill that SOB"!
Re:oh come on (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure I did, but I made damned sure that nobody but the friend(s) I was talking to would overhear me, and I sure as hell never wrote it down. I learned very early on - 4th grade, as a matter of fact; I still remember the teacher and the incident - that anything you write down can and will come back to haunt you. It's a lesson I've not forgotten. I'm glad that I actually had th
Questionable (Score:2)
Feel sorry for the kid... (Score:2)
Re:Feel sorry for the kid... (Score:2)
His parents are worthless.
If the kid had problems in the class, the parents should have helped him to deal with that in a constructive manner.
If he was doing okay in the class and this is how he got his kicks, we'll then there is not much hope for him.
"I cant put my bag overhead,my pipe bomb's there!" (Score:4, Interesting)
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?)
Everything's different on the internet! (Score:2)
I still boggle at the way people's logic flies out the window like a butterfly.
Another example:
Putting a sign on the street that some stranger is selling pot in the alley? Legal
Linking to a site that has a copy of Back to The Future? Illegal
Can someone clarify? (Score:2)
Which one is it? If it's the former, I don't see what the big deal is as it's like writing that in your personal notbook which you never take outside. If it's the latter,
A critical excerpt (Score:2)
"Further, to the extent that plaintiffs attempt to argue that Aaron's conduct was purely out-of-school conduct, the undisputed evidence establishes that the icon was a threat to kill a teacher at the school, that Aaron circulated it among classmates for three weeks; that he had no reasonable expectation that it would not come to the attention of sch
you know (Score:2)
What's the big deal??! (Score:3, Interesting)
Frankly, what's the big deal? The teacher is probably annoying as hell. Some teachers are painfully condescending and patronizing. I know I had a really hard time dealing with that crap all throughout high school. It was even worse because I had parents that treated me very well, and treated me like a fellow human being while they raised me, so my first reaction to teachers' condescention was anger, because it felt like a direct insult to me.
Anyway, before you go calling this kid a dumbass or whatever, consider that not everyone handles things the same way you do.
tag as helphelpimbeingrepressed (Score:3, Interesting)
Suspending a student for wearing an anti-war t-shirt is censorship, and unacceptable. But sorry kid, this does not rise to that.
Maybe I should shorten it to "dennis", but that's probably a bit obscure.
This Just In.. (Score:3, Funny)
tfa: "the general increase in school violence" (Score:3, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]
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.
Reality Check (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Reality Check (Score:3, Interesting)
"I'm gonna kill you" is a joke in many cases, to laugh at. Such as "I told the waiter its your birthday"
Context is important.
That said, as another poster pointed out, this is a discipline issue, not a federal crime issue. As such, the school should be allowed to limit speach beyond what would be reasonable for the state to do.
Why is this even in court? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
"lost touch?" - more like untouchable (Score:5, Insightful)
You're assuming that the teacher was ever in touch with that student, or that any teacher ever could be. Don't forget that this kid is the product of parents that think the kid's actions were just fine. So - who's at fault, the teacher that can't "get in touch" with a hostile kid, or the parents that think the kid's portrayal of an encouragement to kill a teacher isn't any different than speaking in the debate club?
Re:violence in schools (Score:2)
So just occasionally, the fear is justified
Re:Strange reaction and strange ruling (Score:2)
Uh, it doesn't? Your company will fire you for making that icon of your boss too, and you wouldn't win a lawsuit fighting that either.
Re:Once again, with feeling: (Score:2)
Here's another thought. (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not the person who needs a lesson in law.
Re:Here's a thought (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Double standard (Score:4, Insightful)
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.