- School officials suspended a 13-year-old boy for posting a photo of soda cans arranged like a rifle. His name is W.G.
- His mother is suing the school for violating his First Amendment rights. The boy suspended is at the center of a debate over student expression.
- The case highlights issues with student free speech and social media, particularly in light of the boy suspended for a creative post.
A 13-year-old boy from Missouri posted a picture on Snapchat showing Dr. Pepper cans arranged like a rifle. W.G. shared the image on September 14. Two days later, school officials searched his belongings and suspended him for three days. School officials considered the post “threatening” and labeled it as “cyberbullying.”W.G., the boy suspended, could not believe the consequences.
Mother Files a Lawsuit
W.G.’s mother, Riley Grunden, is suing the school district. She feels her son was unfairly treated. She believes he did nothing wrong. The lawsuit states that W.G. never hurt or threatened anyone. Instead, he was simply expressing creativity. His mother points out that other students have posted similar images without facing consequences. Grunden claims her son’s post is protected by the First Amendment.
The Image and the Song
The image posted by W.G. showed soda cans arranged in the shape of a rifle. He shared it on his personal Snapchat account, off school grounds. The background song was called “Ak47.” The song talked about the AK47 rifle, but there was no threat in the lyrics. W.G. didn’t hold the cans, and the photo didn’t show anything that suggested harm to others. According to the lawsuit, the photo didn’t contain threatening language or suggest violence in any way.
School’s Response to the Incident
The school took immediate action after the post was discovered. School officials said the photo caused fear in at least one student. Lanna Tharp, the school district’s superintendent, said there was no real threat. However, the school felt the post disrupted the learning environment. The district released a statement warning parents about the seriousness of social media posts. They urged parents to talk to their children about the potential consequences of posting violent or threatening content online, even if it happens off-campus.
Grunden’s Concerns About the Suspension
Riley Grunden disagrees with how the school handled the situation. She doesn’t understand why her son’s creative post was treated as a threat. She also pointed out that other students had posted pictures with real firearms without facing any punishment. In fact, she recalled seeing photos of guns shared by students and staff. Grunden also mentioned a case where a student brought an airsoft gun to school, but parents were never notified. She felt her son was unfairly targeted because of a harmless art project.
Legal Battle Over First Amendment Rights
The lawsuit filed by Grunden argues that the school violated W.G.’s First Amendment rights. The Goldwater Institute, representing the family, says the school treated the boy unfairly and violated the Constitution with the suspension. The case refers to a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a similar case. In that case, the Court decided that schools cannot punish students for online speech made off-campus. The Court ruled that students have the right to express themselves outside of school, as long as it doesn’t cause significant disruption. The lawsuit states that W.G.’s post was not disruptive and should not have resulted in suspension.
Lasting Impact on W.G.
The suspension has had lasting effects on W.G. His school record will reflect the disciplinary action, which could hurt his chances of getting into top colleges. W.G. has also lost friends and has been the subject of rumors. These rumors suggest that he threatened violence, which is untrue. As a result of the incident, W.G. is experiencing anxiety. This anxiety is affecting his ability to focus and learn in school. He is now receiving counseling to help him cope with the emotional fallout.
Grunden’s Efforts to Challenge the District
Riley Grunden will be fighting the school district’s actions. She believes the school violated her son’s rights and wants the court to declare the punishment unconstitutional. She also asks the court to stop the district from doing this to other students. The lawsuit demands the district cover legal fees. Grunden says her son was unfairly punished for a harmless, creative project.
School District’s Response to the Lawsuit
In response to the lawsuit, the school district acknowledged the legal action. However, they said they are limited in what they can share publicly due to student privacy laws. The district’s spokesperson, Lanna Tharp, said the school has legal counsel to defend its actions. For now, the school is focusing on presenting its side of the case in court. The district’s stance remains that social media posts with violent imagery can disrupt the school environment.
