— In Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld the adjudication of a student who appealed on the grounds that his speech was not a “true threat” and therefore was protected under the First Amendment. The student “was serving an in-school suspension after a teacher, Ms. P., discovered a nicotine “vape” in his possession that morning. That afternoon, while checking on (the student) and assisting him with his work, Ms. P. observed multiple notes, one of which included the phrase “hit list” and identified multiple first names.” After an investigation with law enforcement, the following language was taken seriously:
“Statements such as “Don’t let the cops see this,” “Don’t open unless you got permission,” “Me Dom kill trap goal, we got guns knifs,” “plan to drop trap and spades on spring break when it’s sumer,” “Plan get ride to Sheboygan wi gun and kick door in and start a fight then pull gun out and shoot!!![,]” “7spade ido not know wtf to do with them bro but we need more guns me you [two individuals] everyone in the car[,]” and “iilegle writing don’t let no teachers or cops or opps see this if you do you’re a new opp!!”
The student later claimed that “he was bored with being stuck in school suspension all day so he decided to create a fake plan.” The student was adjudicated for “making terrorist threats contrary to [state law].” On appeal, the student continued to argue that school officials “failed to identify any conduct that would rise to the level of a “true threat.” The student also stressed that “there was no showing, as required under Counterman v. Colorado, that he had “consciously disregard[ed] the substantial and unjustifiable risk that the threat would cause harm to another.””
The appellate court affirmed the adjudication, agreeing with the trial court that
“(t)he documents are extremely concerning. It’s a hit list with names of students — a lot of it’s difficult to — for the Court to understand. I didn’t know — I see now it says, “6roses” — we now know is a park. So some of it — it’s unclear, but I think any reasonable person would see this as very threatening and scary… These are things that a reasonable person would be very concerned about. Very unsure exactly why he picked the juveniles that are on the list, but it doesn’t matter; it just matters that these were threats. This was meant for someone; the teacher saw that, reported it to the principal and this is what we have. So the Court believes the State has met its burden, and the three elements have been met”, e.g., 1.The student threatened to cause the death of or bodily harm to any person or to damage any person’s property; 2. The student created an unreasonable and substantial risk of causing a result; and 3. The student was aware of that risk. In the interest of I.T.S.
— In North Carolina, an investigation of school building safety in Wake County “reveal hundreds of violations, some taking years to fix.” The focus of the report was whether the schools were “up to state fire code.”
— In West Virginia, school safety mapping requirements are now in effect. Under West Virginia Code 18-9F-10a, “county school systems must create standardized mapping data for schools that can be shared with law enforcement, fire departments and emergency medical services.”
— In Virginia, teachers in Fairfax County are protesting “a requirement from the school says that all teachers have to pitch in with weapons detection duty. In other words, they have to help man the metal detectors by the front door.” The teachers union says that, “(t)hey didn’t enter teaching to be on the front lines of weapons detection.” One teacher “refused the weapons detection duty last year because he didn’t feel safe, and the school then reprimanded him.”