Taylor Bell v. Itawamba County School Board
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14630
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Student Taylor Bell recorded and posted a profane rap off-campus on Facebook and YouTube accusing two school coaches of misconduct and including lines referring to firearms and “cap that nigga.” The posts were publicly viewable and Bell admitted he intended students/labels to hear it.
- Coaches learned of the song, one listened to it on a student’s phone at school, and school officials investigated and suspended Bell pending disciplinary hearings. The disciplinary committee recommended upholding suspension and placement in alternative school; the school board unanimously found Bell threatened, harassed, and intimidated employees and adopted the recommendation.
- Bell sued, alleging violation of his First Amendment rights; the district court granted summary judgment to the school board, finding the song constituted harassment/intimidation and could reasonably be forecast to cause substantial disruption.
- A panel initially reversed; en banc Fifth Circuit reviewed whether Tinker applies to off-campus, internet-disseminated student speech and whether summary judgment for the school was proper.
- The en banc majority held Tinker governs where a student intentionally directs off-campus speech at the school community that school officials reasonably interpret as threatening/harassing/intimidating, and that here the school reasonably forecast a substantial disruption—so summary judgment for the school was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tinker’s school-speech standard applies to off-campus internet speech | Bell: Tinker is limited to on-campus speech and does not cover purely off-campus speech posted without school resources | School: Tinker can apply when off-campus speech is intentionally directed at the school community and risks disruption | Held: Tinker applies here where student intentionally targeted the school community and speech was reasonably understood as threatening/harassing/intimidating |
| Whether Bell intended his speech to reach the school community | Bell: Song was artistic/whistleblowing and not intended as a threat to school employees | School: Bell admitted he posted to reach students/raise awareness and expected listeners | Held: No genuine dispute—Bell intended the song to reach the school community |
| Whether the content constituted threats/harassment/intimidation (and thus falls outside ordinary protection) | Bell: Language was hyperbolic, artistic, or political/whistleblower speech on public concern | School: Lyrics named teachers, described violence and firearms, and encouraged others to act—reasonably read as threats/harassment | Held: As a matter of law, language was reasonably understood as threatening/harassing/intimidating to lay observers; summary judgment allowed on that point |
| Whether school officials reasonably could forecast a substantial disruption under Tinker | Bell: No actual substantial disruption occurred; evidence does not support a reasonable forecast | School: Multiple factors (named teachers, online dissemination, reactions, changed teacher behavior, school policy) made disruption reasonably foreseeable | Held: Reasonable forecast of substantial disruption existed as a matter of law; discipline upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (students’ school speech protected unless it would materially and substantially disrupt school)
- Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) (limited exception allowing discipline for certain dangerous school speech)
- Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) (schools may restrict lewd/vulgar in-school student speech)
- Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) (school control over school-sponsored speech)
- Ponce v. Socorro Indep. Sch. Dist., 508 F.3d 765 (5th Cir. 2007) (Morse extended to certain threats of school violence; threats to individual teachers treated under Tinker)
- Shanley v. Ne. Indep. Sch. Dist., 462 F.2d 960 (5th Cir. 1972) (applied Tinker-related analysis to off-campus student expression)
- Kowalski v. Berkeley Cnty. Schs., 652 F.3d 565 (4th Cir. 2011) (Tinker applied to off-campus online harassment where a strong nexus to school existed)
- Doninger v. Niehoff, 527 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2008) (Tinker applied when off-campus online speech foreseeably reached school and risked disruption)
- Wynar v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 728 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2013) (schools may discipline off-campus online threats of school violence under Tinker)
- Bell v. Itawamba Cnty. Sch. Bd., 774 F.3d 280 (5th Cir. 2014) (panel opinion addressing true-threat question; subsequently vacated for en banc review)
- Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015) (Supreme Court discussion of mens rea for threats; noted but not decided here)