# J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · September 25, 2002 · 569 Pa. 638

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9755070

## Case

- **Full name:** J.S., a Minor by and Through His Parents and Natural Guardian H.S. and I.S., Appellants v. BETHLEHEM AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 25, 2002
- **Citations:** 569 Pa. 638; 807 A.2d 847; 2002 Pa. LEXIS 2124
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Castille
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Former
- **Cited by:** 34 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Abrogated by Commonwealth v. Knox, J., Aplt., 190 A.3d 1146 (2018).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9755070

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that there was a “sufficient nexus” between a student’s website, on which he made “derogatory, profane, offensive, and threatening” comments about his teacher and correspondingly caused her significant health problems, and the school, so as to bring the speech on-campu…
- concluding that offensive student website, although not true threat, caused "actual and substantial disruption of the work of the school," thus permitting school to impose disciplinary action pursuant to Tinker
- holding that responsibility for water damage “cannot lawfully be assigned to appellant” since “it was only the natural flow of excess water produced by the storm which proceeded down through the natural watercourse and caused the damage to appellees’ properties.”
- applying Watts and concluding that middle school student's posting on his " 'Teacher Sux' " web page, which asked "why [the teacher] should die, show[ing] a picture of [the teacher's] head severed from her body and solicit[ed] funds for a hitman," was not true threat but, inst…
- holding that a school district's punishment of a student for creating a website at home during non-school hours was permissible

## Opinion text

*677 Justice CASTILLE,
concurring.
I join the majority opinion. I think the question of whether the communications at issue amounted to a “true threat” is a close one, and one that reasonable jurists might disagree about. In light of the totality of the circumstances, including the targeted, violent and solicitous statements here concerning one particular teacher, there is something to be said for Mr. Chief Justice Zappala’s conclusion that the communications “constituted threatening statements which connote a serious expression of intent to inflict harm” which are entirely beyond First Amendment protection. This question, however, is an intensely factual one and, after much reflection, I am satisfied to join in Mr. Justice Cappy’s view of the matter. I do so because Justice Cappy’s analysis of this important question, as well as the question of whether the School District could otherwise punish J.S. for the communications — including Justice Cappy’s exposition of the constitutional standards and considerations that must govern our review — is analytically comprehensive and legally convincing. I also join in the majority opinion because I believe that it is important for this Court to decide eases by clear majority opinion whenever possible, and particularly where, as here, the case is heard upon discretionary appeal. See U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 ,---, 122 S.Ct. 1516, 1526-27 , 152 L.Ed.2d 589 (2002) (O’Connor, J., concurring).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9755070. Public record. Not legal advice.