The balancing act between protecting First & Second Amendment rights – and school safety

Airsoft rifle shoots rubber bullets and is commonly used for “war” play by youth and adults.

The specter of school violence visited our community on Friday, Sept. 13 when a Dunnellon High School student was arrested on charges including threatening to conduct a mass shooting. Coming just over a week after a teen brought a military-style rifle to a high school in Georgia and killed four people, the incident has left many Marion County residents angry, frightened and calling for authorities to severely punish the teen.

But despite the similarities, there are several key differences that should not be ignored as we process the incident.

For starters, the local teen—who is not being identified per the “Gazette’s” policy of not publishing, in most cases, the names of minors who have been arrested—did not physically harm anyone. He did not go onto school property. He did not even have a real weapon; in a video of himself he posted to Snapchat he held an Airsoft rifle, like a BB gun, which shoots plastic pellets.

His online had the caption: “HE’S BAAAAACK!”

Alarming? Absolutely, particularly when every parent, teacher, student and law enforcement member in the United States is on edge because of the seemingly relentless number of school shootings.

A parent of a student at the school notified the School Resource Officer that she and her child were frightened by the video. That was the correct step. “See something, say something” are not just singsong words; they can save lives.

What happened next demonstrates what can happen when we let our justified fears cloud our common sense.

The Marion County Sheriff’s Office arrested the 16-year-old on two felony charges and posted his photo to its Facebook page. The MCSO published the teen’s name and, initially, reported that a search of the teen’s home revealed actual weapons.

They later corrected that misstatement, a key point because the teen and his family told deputies they often use Airsoft guns for mock battles in their home.

Predictably and understandably, hundreds of people flooded the comments section of the MCSO post. Also predictably, most of the commenters called for the teen, and his parents, to be punished severely.

But in the rush to judgment, can we all pump the brakes?

Certainly, no one needs to be reminded that our nation has been in the terrifying grip of school shootings for too many years. Some citizens lean toward vigilante justice for anyone thought to be connected to a school shooting, real or imagined- and that makes the problem only more dangerous.

Yes, the teen showed a monumental lack of judgment by posing with a gun, even a toy one, and posting a photo online. If his parents were aware of this and did not prevent him from doing so, they should be held accountable as well.

But there needs to be some common sense here. While not everything is known at the time of the interaction with law enforcement, once all the relevant details are known, cooler heads should prevail.

A few people responding to the MCSO post who identified themselves as family of the teen shared that Airsoft battles are a family activity and the boy was only talking smack before the next family game.

According to the incident report, the teen’s mother allowed the deputies to search the property. They only found other Airsoft guns, supporting the statements that playing “war” was a family pastime.

The “Gazette” reviewed the video and could not discern any specific threat. The arrest affidavit was not clear on the verbiage of the threat and to whom the threat was made, only that a mother and daughter saw the student’s and it made them fearful.

MCSO spokesman Lt. Paul Bloom said the video “was linked in a stream of comments about a school shooting. So, when others on the post saw this subject’s comment/photo, it was taken in context as pertaining to the school shooting that was being discussed.”

However, this context was not mentioned in the arrest affidavit or the incident report—only that the video was posted on a Dunnellon High School group Snapchat.

As of Sept. 18, Carrie Proctor, Assistant State Attorney, confirmed that the juvenile was still incarcerated and that the state attorney’s office has not yet made a filing decision. “Arraignment is next week, and a decision will be made prior to his court date,” she wrote by email.

Arraignment is Sept. 25 at 9:00 a.m.

In response to a question regarding the MCSO policy on arresting anyone who posts online a photo of thenselves holding a gun, Bloom wrote that since juveniles “have greater restrictions on gun usage/ownership under the law, we will always investigate it as it is reported to us by those affected by a threat or perceived threat.”

Bloom said the MCSO does not discourage people from posting to social media about guns, but the agency does “enforce Florida law and discourage people from making threatening posts on social media involving firearms. Making a threat or even a perceived threat to children at a school will take top priority. This plague of violence in schools has to be confronted immediately and head-on.”

This incident raises what could be seen as a conflict between the Constitution’s First and Second Amendments. A citizen has a right to free speech, which now includes social media. A citizen also has a right to own a gun, if legal requirements are met.

What if the teen’s online photo showed him holding a loaded rifle while standing over a dead deer, with the same caption: HE’S BAAAACK?” What if someone was frightened by that image and called the police?

Some would say the analogy fails because one instance shows a lawful use of a weapon, while the other is so vague it could mean anything, including a school shooting threat. Others might note that the fact that one photo shows a loaded rifle; the other, a toy gun. The person holding the toy was arrested, the one with a deadly weapon would not be.

An online photo of anyone with a gun can make some people nervous, and parents who have guns in the house must talk to their children about the proper care of these dangerous weapons, including not posting photos of them.

A National Public Radio (NPR) report last year about how social media plays a role in teen gun violence and social media companies’ policies about removing content quoted YouTube spokesperson Jack Malson as saying the company “prohibits content reveling in or mocking the death or serious injury of an identifiable individual.”

Additionally, the report quoted Rachel Hamrick, a spokesperson for Meta–which owns Facebook and Instagram–said the company has spent about $16 billion in the past seven years to protect the safety of people who post on its apps, employing 40,000 people at Facebook who work on safety and security.

“We remove content, disable accounts and work with law enforcement when we believe there is a genuine risk of physical harm or direct threats to public safety,” Hamrick said. “As a company, we have every commercial and moral incentive to try to give the maximum number of people as much of a positive experience as possible on Facebook. That’s why we take steps to keep people safe even if it impacts our bottom line.”

Pete Boogaard, a Snapchat spokesperson, told NPR the company deletes violent content within minutes of being notified. But, Fogg noted, by the time a post is removed, hundreds of people may have seen it.

Such was the case with the Dunnellon teen. Someone saw it, was frightened by it, and reported it to law enforcement, which dutifully investigated.

All of which is reasonable and should be applauded.

However, does the teen deserve the onslaught of public condemnation, and a criminal arrest record, for a boneheaded social media post? Could law enforcement, having determined there was no genuine threat to anyone, and instead have counseled the teen and his family?

In schools and elsewhere, these instances are rightly known as teachable moments.