LAST WEDNESDAY, the California Supreme Court began a hearing for a teenager who claims his rights to free speech have been violated. The First Amendment, if enforced properly, ought to protect the right of free speech for American citizens, and the only exceptions that ought to be made for this amendment are ones that clearly present a danger to themselves and those around them. The government has failed to protect the teenager's rights by punishing him for writing violent poetry, and if the California Supreme Court does not overturn the charges that have been brought against him, they will be setting a bad precedent of unnecessarily restricting free speech.
When George T., the teenager in question, was 15, he showed a poem that he wrote to two of his fellow classmates. Entitled "Faces," the poem contained lines that brought back memories of the Columbine High School shootings. One line in particular read, "I slap on my face of happiness but inside I am evil! For I can be the next kid to bring guns to kill students at school," and this caused enough alarm for one of the students to notify a teacher. That teacher then notified police, and George was expelled from the high school. He also faced a criminal charge on the grounds of threat, and he was sentenced to 100 days in a juvenile hall for his poem. Authorities later found more of his writings, some of which read, "Probably I would be the next high school killer." George's appeals were turned down by an appeals court, which upheld that he could act upon his writings.
In some aspects, the courts as well as the school system handled the situation admirably. Poems such as these are obviously the handiwork of a depressed individual who feels animosity toward his classmates. If his environment and negative mind state are related to one another, then he should rightfully be removed from the school and placed into another environment. Allowing him to stay in that environment would impede his ability to learn, and hopefully his new environment would be better suited to him. Furthermore, it would be equally taxing on the classmates in his old school, most of whom would isolate and stay away from him as much as possible.
This kind of reaction is unavoidable, and regardless of whether they were threats or simply satire, the teenager has already been stigmatized. This reputation of a potential school shooter is close to impossible to shake. By moving to another school, he will be able to start on a clean slate, and his antisocial behavior won't be aggravated by students who have judged him based upon his poem.
Aside from this, however, the courts went too far by charging him under criminal threat law. These types of actions are too extreme, and 100 days in juvenile hall for what George wrote is complete overkill. At the very most, the courts should have ordered that George undergo psychological counseling in order to work out his social problems. There is nothing to prove that his words are anything more than artistic expression, and prosecuting him because of disconcerting thoughts is ridiculous.
A poem is a work of art, and whether the majority of society feels that he has produced a socially wholesome work of art, he should nevertheless be allowed to say what he wants without having to serve time.
As it stands, such a ruling by the courts is an awful precedent to set, and prosecutors will be able to use this case as a means to censor artists, musicians and other poets. People in these mediums are able to say and create whatever they want, and with a few exceptions, they can get away with lyrics that are extremely similar to George's poem. Even Johnny Cash, who is a musical legend, Grammy winner, and Hall of Fame inductee, has sung about cocaine, murder and assault. However, when Johnny Cash sings about shooting a man in Reno just to watch him die, no one has ever come after him and dragged him through the court system.
There should not be a double standard for George, because others will be subject to censorship as a result of this ruling. By overturning the court's decision, the California Supreme Court has a chance to expand the right to freedom of speech rather than placing its definition in the hands of individual judges and opinions. Although those who are disturbed enough to write such thoughts ought to seek professional help for their depression, they should be commended for expressing their thoughts in words rather than in actions. People should not be punished for confessional writing or honesty, and George's plight only discourages those who feel the same way as he does from making themselves known. Counseling, rather than jail time, will help those people who are in need, and it will simultaneously keep the right to free speech in its correct form.
(Kevin James Wong's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at kwong@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
