Schenck v. US (Score 2, Insightful)

As a result, the school district sent Aaron's parents a notice of a formal disciplinary hearing and also tipped off the sheriff's department (which declined to do anything, concluding that the icon was indeed a joke). Meanwhile, a psychologist concluded that Aaron did not pose a threat. With the information given, it seems more like a threat than anything else, but the people who actually investigated it seem to think otherwise. The joke must have some background, otherwise the police wouldn't have concluded it was a joke. Likewise, the surrounding circumstances--including the effect of the icon on Mr. VanderMolen and school officials, Aaron's awareness of the school's position that a threat was not a joke, the absence of any factor to suggest that the icon was a joke and the general increase in school violence--establish that an ordinary, reasonable recipient who is familiar with the context of the icon would interpret it as a serious threat of injury. It seems clear that the ordinary, reasonable recipient would have been one of his classmates, and as far as the article indicates, everyone who has become familiar with the context of the icon has concluded that it is a joke. From Schenck v. US Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment, may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The circumstances in which the icon was used were in privacy. (one could argue that the aim icon was viewable by anyone, but why would a school official be chatting with a 15 year old kid?) It was obviously a joke to be understood by the kid's friends. It was by no means yelling fire in a crowded theater.