Mark Wynar v. Douglas County School District
2013 WL 4566354, 728 F.3d 1062, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18056 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A school may discipline a student for off-campus speech, such as online messages, when the speech constitutes an identifiable threat of school violence that would foreseeably create a substantial disruption of school activities or invade the rights of other students to be secure.
Facts:
- Landon Wynar, a sophomore at Douglas High School, owned several weapons and frequently communicated with friends via MySpace instant messages from home.
- His messages became increasingly violent, discussing plans for a school shooting at Douglas High School on April 20th, the anniversary of the Columbine shooting.
- Wynar's messages detailed a 'hit list,' named specific classmates he intended to shoot, described the weapons he would use, and referenced the Virginia Tech massacre, boasting he could kill more people.
- His friends, who were the recipients of these messages, became alarmed by the escalating threats.
- Two of the friends decided to report the messages to a football coach at the school, who then involved the principal.
- When questioned by school administrators and police, Wynar admitted to writing the messages but claimed they were a joke.
Procedural Posture:
- Landon Wynar and his father sued the Douglas County School District and its officials in the U.S. District Court, alleging violations of Landon's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Wynar filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court denied.
- The school district filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted, finding in favor of the school district on all claims.
- Landon Wynar, the plaintiff, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public school violate a student's First Amendment right to free speech by expelling him for off-campus instant messages that threatened a school shooting and named specific students?
Opinions:
Majority - McKeown
No, the school did not violate the student's First Amendment rights. When faced with an identifiable threat of school violence, schools may take disciplinary action in response to off-campus speech that meets the requirements of the Tinker test. Landon's messages threatened the safety of the school and its students, both interfering with the rights of other students to be secure and making it reasonable for school officials to forecast a substantial disruption of school activities. The court reasoned that given the history of school shootings, schools have a duty to prevent disturbances and do not need to wait for an actual disruption to occur. The specific, violent nature of the threats, which named the school and individual students, combined with Wynar's confirmed access to weapons, made it reasonable for the school to take the threats seriously and act to protect the school community.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that the Tinker standard, traditionally applied to on-campus speech, extends to off-campus, online speech that poses a credible threat of school violence. It establishes that if there is a sufficient nexus between the off-campus speech and the school environment, such as a direct threat that is foreseeably brought to the school's attention, the school's interest in maintaining safety and order outweighs the student's free speech rights. This decision provides schools with the authority to address serious online threats, reflecting the judiciary's recognition of the challenges schools face in the digital age and the paramount importance of student safety. Future cases involving less severe off-campus speech, like bullying or parody, may still require further clarification.
Unlock the full brief for Mark Wynar v. Douglas County School District