Housy 2009-2010

Nick is working with the group examining how schools increasingly regulate speech and behavior outside the school grounds. Here is his essay:

Media Studies Nick Dignacco
We Project – Milford, CT Case 11/23/09

The We Project’s goal is to create a documentary on freedom of speech in public forums such as MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, etc. There are several different angles to look at the matter. On one side of the spectrum, some would argue that the first amendment of the Constitution allows Americans the right to free speech; therefore, they should be able to express themselves freely on any public forum without consequence. On the opposite side of the spectrum, others would argue that the ninth amendment of the Constitution allows Americans all rights generally accepted by natural law and the tenth amendment allows states to create laws for the well-being of their people. Such laws include rights to domestic tranquility, positive learning environment, and security.
A recent case of a threat via Facebook is a typical case in this ever-growing debate on freedom of speech in public forums. This past October, a report was released about a 17 year old student at Jonathan Law High School in Milford, Connecticut, who posted a gun threat on Facebook. He stated that he would bring a gun to school and “shoot the place up”. The post dates back to May, while the report was released in October. School administrators caught wind of the post and had the young man arrested for breach of peace on October 13th, well after his alleged post. This story raises the question of whether the student should be regarded as a free-speaker or a criminal. Further investigation allows for an answer to this question.
The first and most obvious step is to look into Jonathan Law High School’s student handbook. The section regarding assaults and threats comes straight out of the Connecticut General Statutes regarding school violence. The first part of the section reads, “A student will not extort anything of value, threaten injury, or attempt to cause injury in such a way as could reasonably be expected to cause physical injury to any person or damage to private property.” The section continues to list the areas where the law applies to the school including “off school grounds at a school activity, function, or event”. This refers to anything that the school is involved in. Since the student mentioned shooting ‘the place’ up, he brought the school into a position in which any number of people involved with the school could be affected by his actions if he carried through with the threat.
If this is not enough, in the school handbook, inappropriate behaviors are categorized into a mild, moderate, or severe section. Under the severe section, behaviors such as possessing a weapon, fighting, assault, bullying, and threatening are all listed. The consequences to these behaviors include administrative intervention, parental notification, and possible counseling. The administration deemed the threat to the school as severe and worth intervening. The fact that their reaction to the threat was so late is not important to the threat itself, while it does bear the question of how efficient the administration is in keeping their students and faculty safe. If the boy had gone through with the attack he threatened, he would have succeeded because the administration did not find out until 5 months after the initial threat. Perhaps the arrest was excessive or past due, but the facts show that the administration did follow school policy and had the well-being of their school in mind.




VERDICT
In this specific case, nobody was hurt simply because the student did not go through with the threat. However, the school followed policy and dealt with the matter legally. Had the student gone through with the threat, an efficient administration would have avoided any injury. The Jonathan Law High School administrators did not, but perhaps it is not their fault. It is finally time to put some blame on the students. If the students that viewed the post – most likely a healthy percentage of the school – had taken action when they saw the threat instead of a slow leakage, the administration could have enacted their policy efficiently. It is time for students to find common sense and act with moral intentions, rather than selfishly worrying about their reputations.