TEXAS — School administrators were justified in punishing a
high school student who wrote a violent story in his notebook, a federal appeals
court ruled Nov. 20 in a decision that free-speech advocates fear could greatly
expand officials' power to censor student expression.
A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based its
decision on its interpretation of the Supreme Court's June ruling in Morse v.
Frederick, the so-called "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case. In that decision, the
Court ruled that school officials can censor student speech that a reasonable
observer would believe advocated the use of illegal drugs. The 5th Circuit, in
its Nov. 20 ruling, found that by similar reasoning, officials also can punish
speech they believe advocates behavior that endangers students' physical
safety.
A Montwood High School sophomore, identified in court documents as E.P.,
was suspended for three days in August 2005, after Montwood Assistant Principal
Jesus Aguirre discovered a violent story in the student's notebook at school.
The story, titled "My Nazi Diary Based on a True Story," was written in the form
of a first-person diary. It described the formation and growth of a neo-Nazi
party at Montwood and other high schools in the Socorro Independent School
District, culminating in a Columbine-style shooting at graduation two years
later.
E.P. and his parents maintained that the story was entirely fictional, but
Aguirre concluded the writings constituted a "terroristic threat." When district
officials upheld E.P.'s suspension and sought to transfer him to an alternative
educational program, his parents — Enrique Ponce Jr. and Rocio Ponce — put him in a private school and sued the school district.
The U.S. District Court in El Paso ruled in May 2006 that the district
probably had violated E.P.'s First Amendment rights. District Judge Kathleen
Cardone issued a preliminary injunction forbidding the district from
transferring E.P. to the alternative program, maintaining any records of his
discipline or discussing the contents of his notebook without his consent. But
the 5th Circuit's decision vacated the injunction and ruled that the school's
reaction to the story did not violate E.P.'s rights.
Stephen G. Peters, the Ponces' attorney, said the family will file a motion
Monday for a rehearing before the full 5th Circuit but have not decided what
to do if that request is denied.
"I don't know if they're going to want to finance a big jihad over it,"
Peters said, noting that appeals to the Supreme Court are "always long
shots."
Peters said Ponce — who enrolled in a different high school in the
Socorro district after winning the preliminary injunction — has been doing
well, and that "the absurdity of the school district's position couldn't be more
apparent" considering E.P.'s behavior and achievements since returning to the
public school system.
"Before and after, he was pretty much a model student," Peters said. He
said the Ponces' main concerns now are allowing their son to finish his senior
year and helping him get into college.
Officials from the Socorro district said no one would be available to speak
with the Student Press Law Center about the case before Monday. Assistant
Superintendent Pat O'Neill
told a local television station, ABC affiliate KVIA,
that the district was pleased with the 5th Circuit ruling.
"We feel very good about the decisions the court has made. Our number one
concern is for the safety of students and we take that concern very, very
seriously, " he said. "We felt like this was a victory for the safety of all
students."
Interpreting 'Bong Hits'
The appellate court relied heavily on Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's
concurring opinion in Morse, which provided the decisive vote for the
Court's majority. Alito's opinion said the Court's ruling went "no further than
to hold that a public school may restrict speech that a reasonable observer
would interpret as advocating illegal drug use" and did not extend to any
political or social commentary.
But Alito also noted that schools "can be places of special danger" because
students are outside their parents' protection and "compelled on a daily basis
to spend time at close quarters with other students who may do them harm."
Thus, the 5th Circuit's interpretation of the general rule established by
Morse was that "speech advocating a harm that is demonstrably grave and
that derives that gravity from the 'special danger' to the physical safety of
students arising from the school environment is unprotected," and so
administrators do not need to meet the more-protective Tinker standard to
censor such speech. The court said administrators must be able to response
quickly to threats of violence "without worrying that they will have to face
years of litigation second-guessing their judgment as to whether the threat
posed a real risk of substantial disturbance."
Peters, the Ponces' attorney, said even under the 5th Circuit's standard,
the court was wrong to conclude that E.P.'s fictional story amounted to
"advocacy" of dangerous behavior. The El Paso County Attorney's Office
investigated the matter when E.P. was first suspended and declined to pursue the
case.
Beyond the Ponces' case, the 5th Circuit's reading of Morse worries
free-speech advocates.
"I believe it puts us on a very slippery slope, to a point where many
topics of student speech will be outside the scope of First Amendment
protection," said Douglas Lee, an Illinois attorney who serves as a legal
correspondent for the First Amendment Center.
The 5th Circuit's standard, unlike that in Tinker, doesn't require
school officials to consider how realistic a supposed threat is.
"The threat of violence need not be credible, imminent or even possible,"
Lee wrote in a
commentary for the First Amendment Center. "It need not be widely
disseminated or even disseminated at all at school. Any speech about violence
against students, even if clearly fiction or fantasy, is without First Amendment
protection in that circuit."
And the effect of the decision might not be limited to descriptions of
violence.
"As easily as an assistant principal can conclude that an incredible
description of violence threatens real harm, an administrator can determine that
an article about birth control in the school newspaper advocates teen sex," Lee
wrote.
Lee, who also is school board president for Dixon Public Schools, said
Tinker remains a better standard.
"What I have tried to impress upon our school administrators is that I
believe that part of being an effective school administrator is evaluating a
threat to determine whether a threat is serious enough to warrant the
discipline," Lee told the Student Press Law Center.
By Michael Beder, SPLC staff writer