- Related Stories
-
Police blotter: Husband spies on wife's computer
June 16, 2006 -
Police blotter: eBay suit over $380,000 Porsche
May 26, 2006 -
Police blotter: 911 dispatcher misuses database, kills ex-girlfriend
May 19, 2006 -
Police blotter: Enhanced video used to convict arsonist
May 12, 2006 -
Police blotter: Wells Fargo not required to encrypt data
April 14, 2006 -
Police blotter: Porn-dialing firm loses appeal
March 31, 2006 -
Police blotter: Schools' IT chief loses bribery appeal
March 24, 2006 -
Police blotter: Judge orders Gmail disclosure
March 17, 2006 -
Judge to help feds against Google
March 14, 2006 -
Police blotter: Ex-employee faces suit over file deletion
March 10, 2006 -
Police blotter: Cell phone tracking rejected
March 3, 2006 -
Police blotter: Dot-com magnate loses fraud appeal
February 24, 2006 -
Judge: Firm not negligent in failure to encrypt data
February 14, 2006 -
Police blotter: Patriot Act e-mail spying approved
February 9, 2006 -
Verbatim: Search firms surveyed on privacy
February 3, 2006 -
Police blotter: Sysadmin loses e-intrusion case
January 13, 2006 -
Police blotter: Alleged eDonkey pirate gets trial
January 6, 2006 -
Police blotter: Nude 'profile' yields Yahoo suit
December 9, 2005 -
Police blotter: Legal flap over secret sex video
November 25, 2005 -
Police blotter: Judge questions Patriot Act bugs
November 4, 2005 -
Police blotter: Feds' cell phone tracking denied
October 28, 2005
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



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.
- 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 >>