Wisniewski v. Board of Educ. of Weedsport Cent. School Dist.
494 F.3d 34, 2007 WL 1932264, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 15924 (2007)
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 an online communication, if it is reasonably foreseeable that the speech will reach the school environment and cause a material and substantial disruption to the work and discipline of the school.
Facts:
- Aaron Wisniewski, an eighth-grade student at Weedsport Middle School, was instructed in his English class that threats would be treated by the school as acts of violence.
- A few weeks later, using his home computer, Wisniewski created an AOL Instant Messenger (IM) icon depicting a pistol firing at a person's head with splattered blood.
- Beneath the drawing, the icon included the words 'Kill Mr. VanderMolen,' who was Wisniewski's English teacher.
- For three weeks, Wisniewski sent IM messages displaying this icon to approximately 15 of his online 'buddies,' some of whom were his classmates.
- A classmate saw the icon, informed Mr. VanderMolen about it, and later provided him with a copy.
- Upon learning of the icon, Mr. VanderMolen became distressed and reported it to school administrators.
- As a direct result of the incident, Mr. VanderMolen requested and was permitted to stop teaching Wisniewski's class.
Procedural Posture:
- After being notified of the icon, school officials suspended Aaron Wisniewski for five days pending a superintendent's hearing.
- A hearing officer conducted a hearing and found that the icon was threatening and disruptive, recommending a one-semester suspension.
- The Weedsport Central School District Board of Education approved the one-semester suspension.
- Aaron's parents, Martin and Annette Wisniewski, filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Board of Education and the Superintendent in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, alleging a violation of their son's First Amendment rights.
- The District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the federal claims.
- The Wisniewskis (Plaintiffs-Appellants) appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 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 rights by suspending him for creating and sharing an off-campus, online communication that was reasonably foreseeable to reach the school and cause a substantial disruption?
Opinions:
Majority - Newman, J.
No, a public school does not violate a student's First Amendment rights under these circumstances. The court declined to apply the strict 'true threat' standard from criminal law, instead holding that the appropriate framework is the 'substantial disruption' test from Tinker v. Des Moines. Under Tinker, student expression may be suppressed if school officials reasonably conclude it will 'materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.' Although Wisniewski's speech occurred off-campus, it was reasonably foreseeable that the icon, depicting a violent threat against a specific teacher and shared with classmates, would reach the school. Once it reached the school, it was also foreseeable that it would cause a substantial disruption, which it did by distressing the teacher and requiring his replacement in the classroom. Therefore, the school's disciplinary action was constitutionally permissible.
Analysis:
This case is significant for extending the application of the Tinker 'substantial disruption' standard to off-campus, online student speech. It affirms that a school's authority to regulate student expression is not strictly confined to the physical school grounds, especially in the internet age. The decision establishes a 'reasonable foreseeability' nexus, allowing schools to discipline students for online conduct that has a foreseeable impact on the school environment. This precedent provides a legal basis for schools to address cyberbullying and online threats that originate outside of school but disrupt the educational setting.
