Bell v. Itawamba Cnty. Sch. Bd.
| Decision Date | 20 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–60264.,12–60264. |
| Parties | Taylor BELL; Dora Bell, individually and as mother of Taylor Bell, Plaintiffs–Appellants v. ITAWAMBA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD ; Teresa McNeece, Superintendent of Education for Itawamba County, Individually and in her official capacity; Trae Wiygul, principal of Itawamba Agricultural High School, Individually and in his official capacity, Defendants–Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Wilbur O. Colom (argued), Scott Winston Colom, Attorney, Colom Law Firm, L.L.C. Columbus, MS, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.
Benjamin Elmo Griffith (argued), Griffith Law Firm, Oxford, MS, Michael Stephen Carr, Esq., Attorney, Griffith & Carr, Cleveland, MS, Michele H. Floyd, Fulton, MS, for Defendants–Appellees.
Scott L. Sternberg, Baldwin Haspel Burke & Mayer, L.L.C., New Orleans, LA, for Amicus Curiae Student Press Law Center.
Allyson Newton Ho, John Clay Sullivan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, Jeffrey Carl Mateer, General Counsel, Hiram S. Sasser, Esq., Kelly J. Shackelford, Esq., Chief Counsel, Plano, TX, for Amicus Curiae Mary Beth Tinker.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, BARKSDALE, DENNIS, CLEMENT, PRADO, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, GRAVES, HIGGINSON and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Away from school or a school function and without using school resources (off-campus speech), Taylor Bell, a student at Itawamba Agricultural High School in Itawamba County, Mississippi, posted a rap recording containing threatening language against two high school teachers/coaches on the Internet (first on his publicly accessible Facebook profile page and then on YouTube), intending it to reach the school community. In the recording, Bell names the two teachers and describes violent acts to be carried out against them. Interpreting the language as threatening, harassing, and intimidating the teachers, the Itawamba County School Board took disciplinary action against Bell.
Bell claims being disciplined violated his First Amendment right to free speech. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled, inter alia: the school board, as well as the school-district superintendent, Teresa McNeece, and the school principal, Trae Wiygul, acting in their official capacities (the school board), acted reasonably as a matter of law. Bell v. Itawamba Cnty. Sch. Bd., 859 F.Supp.2d 834 (N.D.Miss.2012).
Primarily at issue is whether, consistent with the requirements of the First Amendment, off-campus speech directed intentionally at the school community and reasonably understood by school officials to be threatening, harassing, and intimidating to a teacher satisfies the almost 50–year–old standard for restricting student speech, based on a reasonable forecast of a substantial disruption. See Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 514, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969) (). Because that standard is satisfied in this instance, the summary judgment is AFFIRMED.
On Wednesday, 5 January 2011, Bell, a high-school senior, posted a rap recording on his public Facebook profile page (and later on YouTube), using what appears to be a representation of a Native American as the rap recording's cover image. (His high-school mascot is a Native American.) The recording, in part, alleges misconduct against female students by Coaches W. and R.
Although there are three different versions of the transcribed rap recording in the summary-judgment record, the school board stipulated, at the preliminary-injunction hearing for this action, to the accuracy of the following version provided by Bell, who refers to himself in the recording as “T–Bizzle”. (Accordingly, except for deleting part of both coaches' names, the numerous spelling and grammatical errors in the following version are not noted.)
(Emphasis added.)
At the very least, this incredibly profane and vulgar rap recording had at least four instances of threatening, harassing, and intimidating language against the two coaches:
Bell's use of “rueger” [sic] references a firearm manufactured by Sturm, Ruger & Co.; to “cap” someone is slang for “shoot”.
A screenshot of Bell's Facebook profile page, taken approximately 16 hours after he posted the rap recording, shows his profile, including the rap recording, was open to, and viewable by, the public. In other words, anyone could listen to it.
On Thursday, 6 January, the day after the recording was posted, Coach W. received a text message from his wife, informing him about the recording; she had learned about it from a friend. After asking a student about the recording, the coach listened to it at school on the student's smartphone (providing access to the Internet). The coach immediately reported the rap recording to the school's principal, Wiygul, who informed the school-district superintendent, McNeece.
The next day, Friday, 7 January, Wiygul, McNeece, and the school-board attorney, Floyd, questioned Bell about the rap recording, including the veracity of the allegations, the extent of the alleged misconduct, and the identity of the students involved. Bell was then sent home for the remainder of the day.
Because of inclement weather, the school was closed through Thursday, 13 January. During Bell's resulting time away from school, and despite his having spoken with school officials about his rap recording, including the accusations against the two coaches, Bell created a finalized version of the recording (adding commentary and a picture slideshow), and uploaded it to YouTube for public viewing.
Bell returned to school when it reopened on Friday, 14 January; he was removed from class midday by the assistant principal and told he was suspended, pending a disciplinary-committee hearing. (He was permitted to remain in the school commons until the school bus he rode arrived at the end of the day.) By letter that day to Bell's mother, the superintendent informed her: Bell's suspension would continue until further notification; and a hearing would be held to consider disciplinary action for Bell's “alleged threatening intimidation and/or harassment of one or more school teachers”. The listed, possible basis for such action was consistent with the school district's administrative disciplinary policy, which lists “[h]arassment, intimidation, or threatening other students and/or teachers” as a severe disruption.
The disciplinary-committee hearing, originally scheduled for Wednesday, 19 January, was delayed at Bell's mother's request; it was held on Wednesday, 26 January. Although there is no transcript of the hearing, it was recorded; that recording is in the summary-judgment record. The hearing was facilitated by the school-board attorney, Floyd; three disciplinary-committee members were present, as well as the school principal and Bell, his mother, and their attorney.
The hearing began with the principal's providing a summary of events, after which the YouTube version of the rap recording was played. Among the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Hopkinton Pub. Sch., CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-11384-WGY
...Id. at 27 (citing B.H. ex rel. Hawk v. Easton Area Sch. Dist., 725 F.3d 293, 321 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc); Bell v. Itawamba Cnty. Sch. Bd., 799 F.3d 379, 398 (5th Cir. 2015) ; Hardwick v. Heyward, 711 F.3d 426, 439 (4th Cir. 2013) ; Trachtman v. Anker, 563 F.2d 512, 516-17 (2nd Cir. 1977) )......
-
Norris ex rel. A.M. v. Cape Elizabeth Sch. Dist.
...the rights of others. 393 U.S. at 513-14, 89 S.Ct. 733. We conduct the Tinker inquiry objectively. See, e.g., Bell v. Itawamba Cty. Sch. Bd., 799 F.3d 379, 398 (5th Cir. 2015) (explaining that in applying Tinker, courts analyze "the objective reasonableness ... of a forecasted substantial d......
-
B.L. v. Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist.
...have applied Tinker to off-campus speech without articulating a governing test or standard. See, e.g. , Bell v. Itawamba Cty. Sch. Bd. , 799 F.3d 379, 394 (5th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (declining to "adopt a specific rule" but applying Tinker to a student who "intentionally direct[ed] at the sc......
-
Oliver v. Arnold
...word "Jesus" on them during non-curricular time was protected by the First Amendment); see also Bell v. Itawamba Cnty. Sch. Bd. , 799 F.3d 379, 401–02 (5th Cir. 2015) (Elrod, J., concurring) (explaining that a student's off-campus speech was not protected because his rap song "was directed ......
-
COMPUTER CRIMES
...for jurisdic-tion where an offense begins outside the state and “consummates” within the state. 434. Bell v. Itawamba Cnty. Sch. Bd., 799 F.3d 379, 394 (5th Cir. 2015); Wynar v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 728 F.3d 1062, 1069 (9th Cir. 2013); D.J.M. ex rel. D.M. v. Hannibal Pub. Sch. Dist. No......
-
Tinkering with Student Speech: Balancing the Protection of Students' First Amendment Rights with a School's Duty to Protect.
...835 F.3d 1142, 1150 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting circuit spilt between threshold test application); see also Bell v. Itawamba Cty. Sch. Bd., 799 F.3d 379, 396 (5th Cir. 2015) (declining to adopt or reject any approach used by other circuits); Wynar, 728 F.3d at 1069 (stating inability to create ......
-
PUT MAHANOY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS: A CLOSER LOOK AT WHEN SCHOOLS CAN REGULATE ONLINE STUDENT SPEECH.
...[https://perma.cc/38H3-ZYMOJ. (84) See, e.g., Bell v. Itawamba Cnty. Sch. Bd., 799 F.3d 379, 396-97 (5th Cir. 2015); D.J.M. v. Hannibal Pub. Sch. Dist. # 60, 647 F.3d 754, 758 (8th Cir. 2011); Wynar v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 728 F.3d 1062, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2013); Wisniewski ex rel. Wisn......
-
The Next Step in Student Speech Analysis? How the Eighth Circuit Further Complicates the First Amendment Rights of University Students in Keefe v. Adams
...rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain Sch. Dist, 650 F.3d 915 (3d Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 1156 (2012); Bell v. Itawamba Cty. Sch. Dist., 799 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 156 S. Ct. 1166 ...