Haughwout v. Tordenti
211 A.3d 1
Conn.2019Background
- Haughwout, a Central Connecticut State University student, allegedly made repeated references to shooting the school, identified a student as "first on his hit list," showed photos of bullets, bragged about guns/ammunition, and used gun-shaped hand gestures; some listeners treated remarks as jokes while others reported fear and contacted campus police.
- Campus police investigated, applied for a criminal warrant (declined by the prosecutor), and the university placed Haughwout on interim suspension and then expelled him after a disciplinary hearing; the internal appeal affirmed expulsion.
- Haughwout sued seeking reinstatement, damages, and other relief, claiming breach of contract, due process violations, and First Amendment protection for his speech as political hyperbole or joke.
- The trial court relied on the university hearing record, found Haughwout’s statements were "true threats," and entered judgment for the defendants; Haughwout appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court conducted independent First Amendment review (accepting subsidiary factual findings not clearly erroneous) and affirmed, concluding the statements and gestures were true threats unprotected by the First Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Haughwout’s statements/gestures were protected speech or true threats | Statements were joking political hyperbole or dark humor; contemporaneous listeners construed them as jokes; lacked particularity | Statements and conduct, viewed in context (access to weapons, named target, listener fear, mass-shooting context), would be reasonably perceived as serious threats | Statements and gestures were true threats and not protected by the First Amendment |
| Whether specificity/particularity required for a true threat was lacking | Remarks were generalized and ambiguous, not directed at a particularized victim | He named a specific student as his "number one target" and also created fear of indiscriminate mass violence among campus population | Particularity requirement satisfied: threats aimed at individuals and broadly at campus were reasonably threatening |
| Relevance of contemporaneous reactions (listeners calling them jokes) | Everyone who heard them treated them as joking; no contemporaneous serious reaction | Some listeners were alarmed, reported to police, avoided student center, and one refused to testify due to fear | Mixed reactions did not preclude finding of true threats; reasonable listener standard focuses on objective context, not uniform reaction |
| Whether university disciplinary action violated First Amendment by relying on Krijger/Watts standards | Watts-style political hyperbole protects provocative speech; Krijger requires care before labeling speech a threat | True-threat doctrine (Krijger) applies; context, access to weapons, repetition, naming a target, and contemporary school-shooting environment make the speech unprotected | Court applied objective true-threat test; Krijger and related authority supported upholding disciplinary action as constitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Krijger, 313 Conn. 434 (Conn. 2014) (articulates objective true-threat standard and appellate independent review in First Amendment cases)
- Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (U.S. 1969) (distinguishes political hyperbole from true threats)
- D.J.M. v. Hannibal Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 60, 647 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 2011) (student threats via instant message found to be true threats given access to weapons and listener concern)
- Doe v. Pulaski Cty. Special Sch. Dist., 306 F.3d 616 (8th Cir. 2002) (school threats unreasonable in wake of Columbine; suspension upheld)
- State v. Taupier, 330 Conn. 149 (Conn. 2018) (true-threat doctrine does not require specific intent to threaten under federal or state constitutions)
- In re A.S., 243 Wis. 2d 173 (Wis. 2001) (statements referencing school shootings found to be true threats when listeners frightened and context lacked indicia of jest)