San Jose Boy's Violent Poetry Wasn't Criminal

7-23-2004

Suggesting school officials overreacted, the California Supreme Court has unanimously overturned the conviction of a 15-year-old boy for writing a poem that suggested he might kill fellow students.

<a href="http://oas.signonsandiego.com/RealMedia/ads/click_lx.ads/www.uniontrib.com/news/features/20040723-0120-ca-violentpoetry.html/538352861/x32/microskills_300x250/300x250_C_gif.html/38303732303637333431313137633630?http://www.microskills.com/microskills_sosda.htm"><font color="#000000"><img src="http://oas.signonsandiego.com/RealMedia/ads/Creatives/microskills_300x250/300x250_C.gif" border="0" height="275" width="300"></font></a> "What is readily apparent is that much of the poem plainly does not constitute a threat," Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for the seven-member court in a dispute that pitted free speech rights against the government's responsibility to provide safe schools.

The San Jose boy, identified only as George T. in court records, was expelled from his high school and served 100 days in juvenile hall after passing the poem around in English class in 2001.

One passage read: "For I can be the next kid to bring guns to kill students at school" and "For I am Dark, Destructive & Dangerous."

The justices noted the poem said the boy "can" be the next kid to bring guns to school – not that he would.

At issue in the case was a law that is usually invoked in domestic violence cases and carries up to year in prison. It says a person can be prosecuted only if the threat conveys the "immediate prospect" of being carried out. Lower courts found that the poem met that definition.

The case had been closely watched by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued that the boy should be free to "write about disturbing subject matter without fear that he will be punished should his work be misinterpreted."

The boy, now 18, argued that he had no violent intentions and that he regarded poetry as an artistic means of describing emotions "instead of acting them out." Prosecutors had contended the First Amendment does not protect criminal threats, even when they are tucked into a poem.

Prosecutor Jeffrey Laurence noted that the boy circulated the poem 11 days after a student another California high school killed two classmates and wounded 13 others in a shooting rampage at Santana High School in Santee.

But defense attorney Michael Kresser told the justices that the boy's prosecution was an overreaction to that event.

On Thursday, Laurence suggested the ruling was a victory for students.

"The Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutionality of California's criminal threat statutes. Simply couching threats in a poem doesn't insulate you from criminal conduct," he said.

Prosecutions of students under the statute are rare, but still do happen.

Two months ago, a 14-year-old boy was arrested at a middle school in the San Francisco suburb of Walnut Creek after posting a cartoon on the Internet with this caption referring to a teacher: "Maybe I should kill him and urinate on his remains."

The case is In re George T., S111780.

Things for you to think about:

Was it right for the teacher in this case to call the authorities? Should we consider pieces of students' writing to be threatening, even if they are poetry or fiction? If you were the teacher in this case...what would you have done?