Boy's letter wasn't true threat, says federal appeals panel

By The Associated Press

08.29.01

Printer-friendly page

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A teen-ager's letter about an ex-girlfriend did not constitute a true threat to the girl and the boy should not have been expelled from school, an appeals court panel said yesterday.

The 2-1 decision by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld a November ruling by U.S. District Judge George Howard Jr. He said the Pulaski County School District overstepped its authority by booting the boy — 14 at the time — from classes.

Rita Sklar, executive director of the ACLU of Arkansas, said yesterday's ruling helps clarify when speech that contains violent thoughts or images is protected by the First Amendment. "It also affirms the principle that schools may not reach out beyond school walls to punish off-campus protected activity it doesn't like," she said in a statement.

In a dissenting opinion, 8th Circuit Judge David R. Hansen said the lower court unnecessarily dignified the "disgusting document" by calling it a composition, "as if it were something prepared for a creative writing class assignment."

The school district had contended that it acted correctly in expelling the boy for one year for "terroristic threatening."

"The court finds that the letter did not constitute a threat, but is protected speech," Howard wrote.

Styled like a rap song, the boy's letter included "patently offensive and profane" language and a threat to kill the ex-girlfriend, the judge said. But it was written at home during the summer and was never intended to be given to anyone, Howard said. The letter was taken by a friend of the boy and given to the girl, who gave it to a school police officer.

After his expulsion from Northwood Junior High School, the boy attended an alternative school for two weeks. At that point, the school board upheld the expulsion and said the boy could no longer attend the alternative school.

The American Civil Liberties Union joined the boy's parents in an appeal.

The boy was allowed back into regular eighth-grade classes at the junior high school after Howard issued a temporary restraining order against the expulsion.

In upholding Howard's ruling, the 8th Circuit, based in St. Louis, pointed out that the boy and his former girlfriend discussed the contents of the letter before she saw the material. The court also said there was no evidence the girl had any knowledge that the boy had a history of violence at the time she became aware of the letter and that there was no evidence to suggest the boy threatened to harm her. It also said the boy and girl peacefully participated in church activities together after the girl became aware of the contents of the letter.

"Although we do not condone the appalling language that J.M. used to express his sense of loss and rejection, we believe that the board's decision to expel J.M. and to eliminate other educational opportunities available to him in the district was unwarranted," the court said. "Under the totality of the circumstances a reasonable person would not have foreseen that J.M.'s composition would have been interpreted by (K.G.) to communicate a serious expression of intent to hurt her."

In his dissent, Hansen said the record shows that the girl considered the threats to be so real that she began sleeping with the lights on. He noted that the four-page letter included four death threats and three threats of rape.

"The elected school board was in the best position to determine what scholastic sanction should be imposed on J.M. for communicating such a flagrant threat of serious bodily injury and death to another student," Hansen wrote.

Update

Federal appeals court backs district's expulsion of student over letter
Full 8th Circuit votes 6-4 to reverse three-judge panel, which had ruled that Arkansas teenager's letter wasn't a true threat.  09.26.02

Previous

Federal judge sides with boy accused of writing threatening letter
Court finds teen's words are protected free speech, Arkansas school district has overstepped its authority by expelling him.  11.27.00

Related

S.D. high court: Boy illegally convicted for school comment
Overruling lower court, justices say student was within his First Amendment rights to privately tell teacher he wanted to kill classmate.  09.06.02