Free Speech

"Some References Are Just Sophomoric Attempts at Humor"

A Maryland court reverses a juvenile delinquency adjudication based on a supposed threat at school.

|

From In re J.W., decided Friday by the Maryland intermediate appellate court, in an opinion by Chief Judge Matthew Fader, joined by Judges Kathryn Grill Graeff and Paul E. Alpert:

After searching unsuccessfully for an item he left in a classroom, J.W., the appellant, said something to the effect that if he did not find the item he was going to shoot up or blow up his school or classroom. Although witnesses understood the 17-year-old's words as joking or "playing," rather than a serious expression of intent to do harm, the State brought two charges against J.W.: (1) disturbing school operations in violation of § 26-101(a) of the Education Article; and (2) knowingly threatening to commit a crime of violence "that would place five or more people at substantial risk of death or serious physical injury … if the threat were carried out," in violation of § 3-1001 of the Criminal Law Article. The Circuit Court for Charles County, sitting as a juvenile court, found that J.W. did not willfully disrupt school operations but found him "involved" in making a threat of mass violence. {A minor who is adjudicated by a juvenile court to be "involved" in an offense is not "convicted" of that offense, nor does the minor face "any of the civil disabilities ordinarily imposed by a criminal conviction."}

J.W., who was found delinquent and placed on three years' probation, contends that the circuit court erred in applying an objective standard to his conduct. He argues that the First Amendment required the State to prove that he subjectively intended to convey a threat of harm. He also contends that regardless of the standard, the evidence was insufficient to establish that he made a "true threat" that is not protected by the First Amendment. We agree that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the juvenile court's finding regardless of whether the standard is objective or subjective. Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment….

J.W. contends that because he "was joking when he made his comment," "the evidence was plainly insufficient to establish that [he] made a true threat." Based on the prevalence of active shooter drills and mass shootings, J.W. asserts, students today are highly aware of their vulnerability to violence at school, and, in that context, J.W. contends that his remark was a form of "gallows humor. Joking about a scary thing makes it a little less scary … [a]nd so sometimes kids joke about school shootings." He emphasizes that, shocking as it may seem that such "a comment could be made in jest, … none of the witnesses to the comment who testified (two students and a teacher) were [shocked by it]."

The juvenile court's finding that J.W.'s statement was a true threat is at odds with the evidence of how the statement actually was understood by those who heard it in context. Notably, none of the witnesses to J.W.'s statement perceived it as a serious expression of intent to harm others. The closest any of the witnesses came to such a conclusion was T.L. At the time she heard J.W.'s statement, T.L. perceived J.W. as being playful and believed that he made the comment "very jokingly." The next day, after being interviewed by the school administration and asked to provide a written statement, T.L. decided that the statement "wasn't very jokingly to me[.]"

It thus appears that it was the school's request that she provide a written statement about J.W.'s remarks that made T.L. start to think about them more seriously, not the remarks themselves and not J.W.'s manner, which she consistently described as playful or joking. T.B. also did not understand J.W.'s speech as a serious expression of intent to commit a crime of violence. She testified that the statement did not make her feel threatened or scared and she did not think that he was actually going to shoot or blow up the school. Mr. Carter similarly testified that he never felt threatened by J.W.'s statement, and he reported the incident to the administration not because he thought it was serious, but because it was not his "job to decide if the threat was real."

There was ultimately no evidence that anyone viewed the statement as a serious threat. To the contrary, the school's own investigation, which involved interviews of three other students, concluded that J.W.'s statement was not a threat, and the witnesses who testified all agreed that there was no expression of fear or disturbance in response to J.W.'s statement, either contemporaneously or following the incident. In sum, the State did not produce a single witness who perceived the statement as a true threat.

The juvenile court nonetheless concluded that J.W.'s remark was a true threat. In explaining its decision, the court referenced the words J.W. uttered, testimony that he was not good friends with other students in the classroom, and its own belief that, "[i]n the modern [era] … you just can't" make a threat to shoot people while in a school. In light of the evidence presented at trial, none of these factors provides a sufficient basis for finding J.W. involved in the prohibited conduct.

As discussed above, the words J.W. uttered must be viewed in context, not in a vacuum or against the background of different events. Here, the evidence was undisputed that, in context, those who heard J.W.'s speech did not view it as a serious threat. And although the court was correct that T.L. and T.B. were not good friends of J.W., they still viewed his comments as "playing" and joking. Thus, relying on the evidence and without resorting to speculation, all we know is that those who heard the remarks—the people who, as J.W. points out, heard the tone of his voice and saw "the expression on his face, the look in his eyes, his body language, his attitude and demeanor"—did not perceive them as a serious threat.

The court's statement that any projection of school violence should be taken seriously is undoubtedly true, but a strict liability standard for uttering words that could constitute a threat if uttered in a different context or in a different manner is inconsistent with the First Amendment and Article 40. Nothing in our opinion should be taken to minimize the horror and tragedy of school shootings or the risks posed by serious threats of school violence. Nor should anything in this opinion be understood to preclude or undermine the ability of schools to respond to such threats or impose appropriate disciplinary measures pursuant to policies and practices for preventing school violence. Here, J.W.'s school investigated his remarks, determined that they did not constitute a threat, and addressed the incident with a disciplinary sanction that is not before us. {At least some courts have found school disciplinary sanctions to be governed by different, more lenient standards than those for criminal prosecution of true threats.} …

A true threat is not idle or careless talk, exaggerated statements, or statements made in a joking manner. The First Amendment protection for statements that do not rise to the level of a true threat has been construed to encompass "the kind of hyperbole, rhetorical excesses, and impotent expressions of anger or frustration that in some contexts can be privileged even if they alarm the addressee." Particularly in the school setting, "some references are just sophomoric attempts at humor" that may be "'[d]istasteful and even highly offensive communication'" but do "'not necessarily fall from [f]irst [a]mendment protection as a true threat simply because of its objectionable nature.'" Haughwout v. Tordenti, 211 A.3d 1, 15 n.16 (Conn. 2019) (alterations in original) (quoting J.S. ex rel. H.S. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 807 A.2d 847, 860 (Pa. 2002)); cf. Burge v. Colton Sch. Dist. 53, 100 F. Supp. 3d 1057, 1060, 1068-69 (D. Or. 2015) (eighth grader's Facebook post about teacher, that "'[y]a haha she needs to be shot,'" "were not 'true threats'" because they "were meant and understood by his audience as a critique of [her] teaching skills and not the serious expression of intent to harm her"); Murakowski v. Univ. of Delaware, 575 F. Supp. 2d 571, 590 (D. Del. 2008) (college student's "racist, sexist, homophobic, insensitive, degrading" posts online, which "contain[ed] graphic descriptions of violent behavior," were "sophomoric, immature, crude and highly offensive in an alleged misguided attempt at humor or parody," but were not true threats); C.G.M., II v. Juvenile Officer, 258 S.W.3d 879, 880-83 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008) (12 year-old's statements to friend that "he may get dynamite from his dad for his birthday" and asking if the friend "wanted to help him blow up the school" was not a true threat when friend did not fear that threat would be carried out, and school did not consider it a threat); J.S., 807 A.2d at 858-60 (middle school student's post on his "Teacher Sux" web page, asking "why [the teacher] should die, show[ing] a picture of [the teacher's] head severed from her body and solicit[ing] funds for a hitman," when "taken as a whole, was a sophomoric, crude, highly offensive and perhaps misguided attempt at humor or parody. However, it did not reflect a serious expression of intent to inflict harm")….

We are not persuaded by the State's suggestion that school safety considerations or evidence that school officials treated J.W.'s statement as a potential threat requires a different analysis or result. Understandably and appropriately, authorities must be vigilant in responding to potential threats of violence in schools. Recalling Justice Holmes's oftcited example of unprotected speech from Schenck v. Ohio (1919), the State suggests that J.W.'s remark was the equivalent of falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater. Although we do not discount the possibility that a similar statement, made in a different school context, could very well fit that analogy, the evidence here demonstrates that the comparison is inapt. J.W.'s single oral remark, although highly inappropriate and undoubtedly ill-considered, indisputably caused no fear, panic, or immediate disruption. The school appropriately took the remark seriously, even if those who directly perceived it did not, and it was not hindered in doing so.

NEXT: Poetry Monday!: "So That's Who I Remind Me Of" by Ogden Nash

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “He emphasizes that, shocking as it may seem that such “a comment could be made in jest…”

    Is there anyone on the planet that is shocked that such comments could be made in jest?

    1. I’m really starting to feel my age. Kids these days just play Fortnite and watch Tiktok videos and talk about how they’re transgender. Back in my day, DOOM was the training platform and Rammstein or KMFDM were the soundtracks to your own school shooting.

    2. People now get cancelled for less than that.

      1. “People now get cancelled for less than that.”

        In the good old days, a guy had to suggest that he was part of a group more popular than Jesus to get a cancellation request.

  2. Lawyers have lost the ability to speak idiomatic English. The statement was dramatic to express great frustration. Most people would understand, losing something does not justify mass murder. Even mass murderers do, but not the lawyer. These mass murderers use ideology or delusional great slights in the past for justification. If I lost a diamond ring, I might bill the school, but not want to blow it up. I would understand I could never get my property back, as well.

    1. I think the most literal interpretation of a person’s words is the best way to deduce their meaning.

      1. It is pouring rain. You will understand, “Great day for a baseball game,” at the mental age of 10.

      2. “I think”
        You keep using that word. I do not think in means what you think it means.

        1. satire — the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues

          1. Satire has a message. This guy does not – he just crafts views to inflame people and then tells us he’s making a point about speech.

            He’s not.

            1. I bet those grapes are sour, right?

              1. More bitter than sour, it seems.

    2. “Lawyers have lost the ability to speak idiomatic English.”

      What’s your excuse? This is about school bureaucrats, not lawyers.

  3. “It thus appears that it was the school’s request that she provide a written statement about J.W.’s remarks that made T.L. start to think about them more seriously”.

    I’ve seen this problem in several news stories about school disruptions: the investigation is worse than the crime. I read a story recently about a female teacher accused of masturbating in the classroom and it sounded like none of the kids noticed and the investigation was the most traumatic thing to happen to them.

  4. A seventeen-year-old sophomore?

    1. His 2nd attempt at 10th grade. He has a .13 GPA over the past 3 years. Top 25% of his class too.

      1. we’re all so proud, too

  5. If they take my stapler then I’ll set the building on fire.

    1. If they take my stapler then I’ll set the building on fire.

      They’ve already taken away your music that you could listen to, at a reasonable volume, from 9 to 11.

      Just be sure to tell that bitch she doesn’t need a piece of cake.

  6. Am I the only one who feels that government officials who take these minor issues to such legal extremes have psychological problems? If nothing else they’ve clearly proven that they should have zero authority over other people.

    1. Vaadu. The Rent Seeking Theory is the Grand Unified Theory of all anomalous lawyer profession behavior.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

    2. Actually, the problem is with the system, not the government officials.

      If you are a school official, you face no downside from making everything into a major event. Sure, the kids involved will be scarred for life, but nothing bad will happen to you.

      If, on the other hand, you ignore something, and it later turns into a problem, you’re going to be in trouble for not having done something earlier.

      So, if you were a government bureaucrat, what would your rational decision under the circumstances be?

      What needs to happen is that the system of rewards and punishments needs to be changed so that government bureaucrats who make mountains out of molehills face consequences themselves. Don’t hold your breath.

      1. “Actually, the problem is with the system, not the government officials.”

        I might quibble that to a large degree, the people in the system are in fact the system.

        But I generally agree with your point. I’m not sure if I am just looking at things through a geezer’s rose tinted glasses, but my sense is that a few decades ago, the general expectation was that people were given positions of authority because it was thought they had good judgement, and that exercising that judgement included deciding when to follow, when to break, and when to amend the rules. The defense of ‘sure, what I did was dumb, but it is in accordance with policy’ didn’t fly.

        Nowadays when some official, say a school district superintendent, does something idiotic he just says ‘my hands are tied, it’s district policy’, even when he wrote the policy. We have become a society that only values the process, not the result.

        1. The point of bureaucracy is to take judgment away from people. All the decisions are made in advance. All the bureaucrat has to do is apply the rule that was decided previously. In theory, by making all the decisions in advance, you can spend as much time as necessary to make sure the decision is correct.

      2. “…you’re going to be in trouble for not having done something earlier.”

        That is correct. The scumbag lawyer profession will destroy your life.

        1. The scumbag lawyers won’t do nothing.

          but the “Idiot-with-an-Internet connection” crowd will rip you to pieces.

    3. “Am I the only one who feels that government officials who take these minor issues to such legal extremes have psychological problems?”

      They get ripped if they overreact to a non-threat. They get ripped if they underreact to a real one. All they have to do is be perfect, every time. How could that possibly lead to psychological problems?

  7. Obviously we should view the comments in hindsight.
    Did the kid go on to shoot anybody? If not, that’s proof that the threat to do so wasn’t really a threat.

Please to post comments