Police blotter: Student sues over IM-related suspension

"Police blotter" is a weekly CNET News.com report on the intersection of technology and the law.

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

When: A federal judge in the northern district of New York rules on June 20.

Outcome: U.S. District Judge Norman Mordue rules in favor of the school district, dismissing the student's claims.

What happened, according to court documents: Aaron was 15 years old in April 2001, when he created an icon for his home computer's instant-messaging program. (CNET News.com has withheld Aaron's last name because of his age at the time the suit was filed.)

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.

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

Although the students apparently viewed the icon as a joke, VanderMolen did not. He later testified that he was scared, concerned and felt sick to his stomach upon reading the message. He asked to be removed from teaching the English class because he was concerned for his safety and that of his 6-month-old child. The school principal claimed that VanderMolen appeared anxious and fearful. (Aaron had no serious disciplinary problems until then.)

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.

Nevertheless, the school district's hearing officer concluded: "Aaron did commit the act of threatening a teacher, in violation of page 11 of the student handbook, creating an environment threatening the health, safety and welfare of others, and his actions created disruption in the school environment."

The school board subsequently suspended Aaron for the first semester of the 2001-2002 academic year, effective Sept. 26, 2001.

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.

Mordue rejected the free-speech claims, saying the "icon constituted a true threat unprotected by the First Amendment." Mordue dismissed the state law claims as well, though Aaron has the option of filing them again in state court.

Excerpt from court's opinion: "The First Amendment protection of free speech does not extend to certain types of speech, including threats of violence. The Second Circuit has observed that First Amendment protection is forfeited where "the threat on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution.

"In any event, as a matter of law, Aaron's icon constituted a true threat unprotected by the First Amendment. As is clear from the factual recitation above, virtually all material facts are undisputed. On their face, the words 'Kill Mr. VanderMolen' and the accompanying graphic cannot be viewed as anything but an unequivocal, unconditional, immediate threat of injury specific as to the person threatened, such as conveys a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution.

"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.

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

"Further, to the extent that plaintiffs attempt to argue that Aaron's conduct was purely out-of-school conduct, the undisputed evidence establishes that the icon was a threat to kill a teacher at the school, that Aaron circulated it among classmates for three weeks; that he had no reasonable expectation that it would not come to the attention of school officials; that when it did so, it caused a substantial disturbance at the school; that it is reasonable that it should have done so; and that Aaron had reason to expect that it would do so."

See more CNET content tagged:
First Amendment, Police Blotter, home PC, student, IM

74 comments (Page 1 of 3)
The School did the right thing
by Charleston Charge June 30, 2006 12:34 PM PDT
I'm sick of these parents suing the schools and everyone else for their kid's actions. For once it would be nice if these parents held their kid responsible for their own actions. Situations like Columbine occurred because people failed to take the warning signs seriously. Since then awareness has grown and these things are now taken very seriously. The school acted in the proper way and it's just ridiculous that this is going to court.
Reply to this comment View all 3 replies
The loser SHOULD be punished
by thenet411 June 30, 2006 1:03 PM PDT
Ok, forget the fact that many of us have wanted our teachers to come to great bodily harm. Creating an animated icon that depicted it is a little over the top. Not to mention, the teacher's reaction (if real and not an act) definately warrants what he got. It is always irritating to me that parents are only too happy to let the school district teach their children the facts of the world but once the school attempts to step in and discipline "their child" they are so quick to run to the lawyer.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
The School did an Asinine Thing
by chizotz June 30, 2006 1:12 PM PDT
No one wants another Columbine. At the same time, it's absolutely asinine to consider something as innocuous as an (admittedly tasteless) icon a credible threat to anyone. We've gone too far, and in the wrong direction, in trying to make sure another Columbine doesn't happen. The underlying cause of Columbine was the complete failure of society to include those young men. Too many young people are ostracized, ridiculed, looked down upon, and disregarded. The only surprising thing to me is that it took so long before some of them finally snapped and struck back. Does that excuse the Columbine shooters? Of course not. Their response to what they felt was intolerable conditions was inappropriate, to say the least. The way to stop that from happening again is not to try to put a muzzle on all expressions of hostility. The way to stop that from happening again is to remove the reasons for hostility, and, when that is not possible or appropriate, to channel the hostility into productive or, at least, harmless outlets. An icon on a computer seems harmless enough to me. Anger is a normal part of the human experience. You can't stop anger by stopping people from expressing it; that just makes the anger worse, and is ultimately counter-productive. The people who think this absurd zero-tolerance policy being inflicted on young people simply trying to express themselves is accomplishing anything worthwhile need to take their heads out of the sand. The answer is not as simple as that, wish as hard as they might that it is.
Reply to this comment View all 3 replies
Problem resolved?
by acalan21 June 30, 2006 1:19 PM PDT
Does suspending a student resolve the issue? Are there no other ways to discipline the student? Shouldn't the school do more to understand the issues between the teacher and the student before they pass judgement? Why does the student dislike or hate the teacher so much? Do other students have similar feelings but did not display them "publicly"?
Reply to this comment
Yeah like a suspension would do any good
by unknown unknown June 30, 2006 1:26 PM PDT
if he intended to carry out the actions dipicted in his icon.
Reply to this comment View reply
When to take action?
by paulej June 30, 2006 2:12 PM PDT
There is nothing wrong with taking action when action is warranted. But, I absolutely disagree with the idea of punishing a person so severely for "doodling". Schools should watch for warning signs, but they should not hear tale of an icon, a picture, or anything else that disturbs them and then immediately take action to suspend a student. They should talk to the student and help the student. Perhaps explaining politely that this is probably not something the student should be doing would be a little more constructive. Does the school and teachers live in constant fear of the students? If so, then they ought to get out of the business and find other jobs. Are they not properly trained to understand the difference between violent behavior and tendencies versus "being a 15 year old kid"? It seems to me that the school board and teachers need to be educated.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
if the words said: "I want to Kill Mr. [Blah blah]"
by Magamus June 30, 2006 3:00 PM PDT
it would have been protected under the 1st Amendment. the generality of his statement is what leads to the threat being a possibility, for he is expressing the idea of doing, rather than his private wish [maybe] of doing it.
Reply to this comment
How old are you
by penguinlust June 30, 2006 3:18 PM PDT
The comment about his parents being tuned in is absolutly silly. First any sane parent would not have allowed him to put such a stupid icon on his system. Second, because the parents obviously did not know or care what he was doing this is a "CYA" thing. They screwed up so yell and scream and blame it on somebody else.

Please also quit screaming about 1st amendment rights. This kid is a minor. He is judged by law as not being old enough to decide for himself his rights.
Reply to this comment View reply
The kids are alright
by MrPseudonym June 30, 2006 5:38 PM PDT
Can we all stop pretending like these 'kids today and their dang computers' are ticking time-bombs? Teenagers are prone to say or otherwise express feelings that are considered violent or otherwise in bad taste. Not all of us have to deal with it but a middle-school teacher should know better. The parent's didn't help things by waving the 1st amendment, but the real fault is on the teacher and the school for reacting inappropriately.
Reply to this comment View reply
Someone give their head a shake!!!
by ve7prt June 30, 2006 10:03 PM PDT
Hello folks, I just read this story, and I cannot believe the audacity of the school system. First off, this little icon was on his HOME computer. This computer was located in his home, not at school, it was connected to an ISP, not the school network. Therefore, the school has absolutely no business taking the sort of measures they did. They have no control whatsoever over what happens on a student's personal computer at home. The same applies to a student who owns a laptop. While there may be some leeway for those who connect their laptops to a school network, the school cannot just have their IT department waltz into a student's computer over the network and view what's on the harddrive. That is called invasion of privacy. The same sort of thing applies to those of us in the workforce. Take me for example. I work for the federal government of Canada. Yet I have stuff on my home computer that would give the IT people in the government fits. BUT, since it is my own system, on my own network, connected to the internet through an ISP of my choosing (through a firewall of course!!), then my place of work has no business sifting through the files on my harddrive. Same thing with my new laptop. They have no business looking at what I have on it, since I own it. Now, having said that about the laptop, obviously some descretion is required. Such as not viewing adult or other questionable material while at school/work, if connected to the network, abiding by the rules of that network, etc. Anyway, the student in question could now sue the snitch for invasion of privacy, slander, defamation of character, emotional and psychological abuse, and probably a dozen other things I forgot. And the school? SHAME on them for not at least pulling this student into the office and talking to him about it first. Just My $0.02Cdn.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
1 | 2 | 3 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News.com to your homepage or feedreader.
Google
Yahoo
MSN
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Today's Top Stories
Early player leaves as Facebook goes corporate
Video: Monday QuickCast, 1st edition
RIM makes Bold Blackberry debut
HelioVolt claims CIGS solar-efficiency mark
Virtual worlds for preschoolers? They're here
Most Popular Stories
Google to launch Friend Connect for the social Web
FBI probe nets counterfeit Chinese networking parts
Stolen Mac helps nab burglary suspects
RIM makes a Bold BlackBerry debut
A modest proposal to fix Dell's customer service
Markets

Market news, charts, SEC filings, and more

Related quotes

Dow Jones Industrials (-0.94%) -120.90 12,745.88
S&P 500 (-0.67%) -9.40 1,388.28
NASDAQ (-0.23%) -5.72 2,445.52
CNET TECH (-0.64%) -11.13 1,724.28
  Symbol Lookup
Detroit auto show
Detroit auto show

Detroit auto show
advertisement
On TechRepublic: Top 5 operating systems you never used
Advanced
search
Advanced
search
Visit other CNET Networks sites: