Importance Score: 62 / 100 🔴
A 13-year-old Missouri student faced suspension after posting a picture of Dr. Pepper cans arranged to resemble a rifle on Snapchat. The incident has sparked debate about student rights and school disciplinary actions. Now, the teen’s mother is suing the school district, claiming a violation of her son’s First Amendment rights. This case highlights the growing tensions between schools and students over online expression.
Teen Suspended Over Dr. Pepper Can ‘Rifle’ Image
The 13-year-old, identified as W.G., shared a photo of his ‘can art’ on his personal Snapchat account on September 14. Two days later, school officials searched his belongings and suspended him for three days from Liberty Middle School. The school administration deemed the image “threatening” and an instance of “cyberbullying.”
Mother Files Lawsuit Against School District
Riley Grunden, the boy’s mother, is now pursuing legal action against the district, alleging that her child was treated like “a criminal.” The lawsuit, supported by the Goldwater Institute’s American Freedom Network, argues that W.G. “never hurt or threatened a single person” and had observed others create similar displays.
Details of the Snapchat Post
- The image was shared on the teen’s private account, outside of school premises.
- The post featured the song “AK47” playing in the background.
- The song included the lyrics: “This is the famous AK47, with over 50 million manufactured in ten countries, the AK47 is the most popular assault rifle in the world.”
- The soda cans were glued together on the floor.
- The lawsuit emphasized that W.G. was not holding the “can art” nor displaying it in a way that suggested it could endanger anyone.
- According to the legal document, the photo lacked any “threatening language or anything that would suggest harm to anyone or anything.”
School Response and Justification
Despite the content of the post, school authorities contacted Grunden, demanding that her son turn himself in and report to the district’s central office due to concerns about the image.
Official Statements from the School
The school released statements online regarding the situation stating:
- “We have enough information to believe the video had caused fear to at least one student, and understandably so.” – Lanna Tharp, Superintendent.
- “We want to inform you that we have become aware of a rumor circulating on social media regarding a potential threat . Following a thorough investigation we have found no credible evidence of any danger.”
- “Some social media posts can cause stress on our students, families, and staff. Social media can also disrupt the learning environment.”
School Plea to Parents
The school urged parents to underscore the seriousness of such incidents, stating:
- “Talk to your child about the seriousness of making a threat or posting anything of a threatening nature (images of weapons, violent song lyrics, violent videos, etc.).”
- “Help us emphasize to all students that making a threat against a public school or any student, has serious legal and disciplinary consequences.”
- “Posts of this nature are not funny or entertaining and will not be considered a joke or form of entertainment.”
- “Even posts that are made outside of school time, impacting the education of our students or causing fear to our students, will be investigated.”
First Amendment Rights and Legal Arguments
Grunden is determined to challenge the district’s decision, asserting that it violated her son’s First Amendment rights.
Mother’s Perspective
“This is unconscionable—my son never hurt or threatened a single person. Instead of using common sense, our own school district treated my child like a criminal for arranging empty soda cans in a way they didn’t like,” she stated. “What happened to his First Amendment rights?”
Goldwater Institute’s Stance
The lawsuit argues that the school district misconstrued the teen’s post to justify punishing him for creative expression protected by the First Amendment. The Goldwater Institute emphasizes the limited power schools have over off-campus speech, citing the 2021 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.
Relevant Supreme Court Case
The Mahanoy case involved a student punished for an off-campus social media post. The Supreme Court ruled that schools cannot punish students for speech made off-campus.
Allegations of Double Standards
Grunden has pointed out alleged inconsistencies in the school’s approach, mentioning instances where staff and students shared images with actual firearms without facing similar repercussions which the district did not consider “threats.”
Concerns Raised by the Mother
“Riley Grunden explained that she had witnessed school officials and others post pictures of actual firearms (held by adults and school-age children),” according to the filing.
She also mentioned a student bringing an air-soft gun to school without parental notification.
Impact on the Student
Since his suspension, W.G. has allegedly suffered injuries, including a permanent mark on his school record, which, according to the lawsuit:
- May impair his ability to gain admission to top colleges and universities.
- Has caused the loss of friendships and the spread of false rumors.
The teen is currently in counseling due to heightened anxiety affecting his learning.
Lawsuit Demands and School District’s Response
The lawsuit seeks to deem the disciplinary actions unconstitutional and invalid, prevent the school district from similar actions in the future, and cover attorney fees.
School District’s Position
In response to the lawsuit, Superintendent Tharp stated: “The School District is aware of the lawsuit that was recently filed. Unfortunately, because the lawsuit involves a student, we are significantly limited in what we are legally permitted to share publicly. For now, we can only say that we have legal counsel, who will present our side of the story and defend against these allegations.”