School threat defendant in court Monday
Jason Johnson, 18, Eau Claire, faces a single charge of terrorist threats, but his defense has challenged the case on First Amendment grounds. According to the criminal complaint, Johnson became 'angry and frustrated' after a teacher told him to avoid being around another student last October.
He then 'walked around the classroom pointing his hand in the shape of a gun at other students.' That led the teacher to speak with colleagues, and a police officer was brought in to speak with Johnson.
Johnson told the officer he 'thinks of shooting other students daily when they upset or bully him.'
At issue is whether Johnson's actions constitute a 'true threat,' thus obviating the protections the First Amendment generally provides for even offensive forms of speech. Prosecutors contended in filings that threats are 'well-established to be outside the protection of the First Amendment.'
The defense doesn't agree that Johnson's purported acts rise to that standard, and wants the case dismissed. While prosecutors said the request for an evidentiary hearing sought 'essentially, a mini trial before trial,' the defense said challenges to charges based on constitutional questions are appropriate.
'Constitutional challenges are a well-recognized and often used route of challenging the constitutionality of statutes as they are applied in specific circumstances.'
Both sides were in court Monday in a bid to persuade Judge Jon Theisen. Prosecutors had hoped to get a ruling at the hearing, but Theisen said he needed more time to consider the arguments. A ruling is scheduled for June 6.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
14 hours ago
- CBS News
Call of Duty maker can't be held responsible for actions of Uvalde school shooter, lawyer argues
A lawyer for the maker of the video game Call of Duty argued Friday that a judge should dismiss a lawsuit brought by families of the victims of the Robb Elementary School attack in Uvalde, Texas, saying the contents of the war game are protected by the First Amendment. The families sued Call of Duty maker Activision and Meta Platforms, which owns Instagram, saying that the companies bear responsibility for promoting products used by the teen gunman. Three sets of parents who lost children in the shooting were in the audience at the Los Angeles hearing. Activision lawyer Bethany Kristovich told Superior Court Judge William Highberger that the "First Amendment bars their claims, period full stop." "The issues of gun violence are incredibly difficult," Kristovich said. "The evidence in this case is not." She argued that the case has little chance of prevailing if it continues, because courts have repeatedly held that "creators of artistic works, whether they be books, music, movies, TV or video games, cannot be held legally liable for the acts of their audience." The lawsuit, one of many involving Uvalde families, was filed last year on the second anniversary of one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history. The gunman killed 19 students and two teachers. Officers finally confronted and shot him after waiting more than an hour to enter the fourth-grade classroom. Kimberly Rubio, whose 10-year-old daughter Lexi was killed in the shooting, was among the parents who came from Texas to Southern California, where Activision is based, for the hearing. "We traveled all this way, so we need answers," Rubio said outside the courthouse. "It's our hope that the case will move forward so we can get those answers." An attorney for the families argued during the hearing that Call of Duty exceeds its First Amendment protections by moving into marketing. "The basis of our complaint is not the existence of Call of Duty," Katie Mesner-Hage told the judge. "It is using Call of Duty as a platform to market weapons to minors." The plaintiffs' lawyers showed contracts and correspondence between executives at Activison and gunmakers whose products, they said, are clearly and exactly depicted in the game despite brand names not appearing. Mesner-Hage said the documents show that they actually prefer being unlabeled because "it helps shield them from the implication that they are marketing guns to minors," while knowing that players will still identify and seek out the weapons. Kristovich said there is no evidence that the kind of product placement and marketing the plaintiffs are talking about happened in any of the editions of the game the shooter played. The families have also filed a lawsuit against Daniel Defense, which manufactured the AR-style rifle used in the May 24, 2022, shooting. Koskoff argued that a replica of the rifle clearly appears on a splash page for Call of Duty. Josh Koskoff, the families' Connecticut-based lead attorney, also represented families of nine Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims in a lawsuit against gunmaker Remington and got a $73 million lawsuit settlement. He invoked Sandy Hook several times in his arguments, saying the shooters there and in Uvalde shared the same gaming obsession. Koskoff said the Uvalde shooter experienced "the absorption and the loss of self in Call of Duty." He said that immersion was so deep that the shooter searched online for how to obtain an armored suit that he didn't know only exists in the game. Koskoff played a clip from Call of Duty Modern Warfare, the game the shooter played, with a first-person shooter gunning down opponents. The shots echoed loudly in the courtroom, and several people in the audience slowly shook their heads. "Call of Duty is in a class of its own," Koskoff said. Kristovich argued for Activision that the game, despite its vast number of players, can be tied to only a few of the many U.S. mass shootings. "The game is incredibly common. It appears in a scene on 'The Office,'" she said. She added that it is ridiculous to assert that "this is such a horrible scourge that your honor has to essentially ban it through this lawsuit." Highberger told the lawyers he was not leaning in either direction before the hearing. He gave no time frame for when he will rule, but a quick decision is not expected. The judge did tell the plaintiffs' lawyers that their description of Activision's actions seemed like deliberate malfeasance, where their lawsuit alleges negligence. He said that was the biggest hurdle they needed to clear. "Their conduct created a risk of exactly what happened," Mesner-Hage told him. "And we represent the people who are exactly the foreseeable victims of that conduct." Meta's attorneys will make arguments on a similar motion next month.
New York Times
a day ago
- New York Times
Trump Order on International Criminal Court Likely Violates First Amendment, Judge Rules
An executive order by President Trump seeking to punish people who work with the International Criminal Court is most likely a violation of the First Amendment, a federal judge found on Friday. Judge Nancy Torresen of the Federal District Court in Maine shielded two U.S. human rights activists from any penalties for violating the directive, saying that by threatening to punish anyone who provides 'funds, goods or services' to I.C.C. officials under sanctions, the order restricts a swath of speech-based activity that goes beyond its stated aims. The ruling marked a striking, if tentative and limited, blow to Mr. Trump's efforts to penalize and isolate the world's highest criminal court. It has drawn his ire by issuing arrest warrants for high-ranking Israeli officials and conducting preliminary investigations into U.S. personnel at secret C.I.A. sites overseas years ago. The court, in turn, has said Mr. Trump is trying to harm its 'independent and impartial judicial work.' The stated focus of Mr. Trump's executive order is what it characterizes as the court's 'baseless actions targeting America and our close ally Israel' and the potential arrest of 'current and former United States personnel.' But those objectives, the judge found, have little to do with the work performed by the two plaintiffs, Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan, who have assisted the court's Office of the Prosecutor with investigations in Bangladesh, Myanmar and Afghanistan. Because of the executive order, lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union told the court, Mr. Smith and Ms. Radhakrishnan had suspended their work with the court. The United States is not part of the treaty that founded the court, which is based at The Hague. It prosecutes individuals for war crimes and atrocities. An older court at The Hague, the International Court of Justice, issues opinions on broader issues between nations, such as climate change. Judge Torresen, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, paused the enforcement of the order while she considers the case, but only for the two plaintiffs. When Mr. Smith and Ms. Radhakrishnan filed their lawsuit in April, they sought the sweeping relief known as a nationwide injunction that would have blocked the president's order across the country. Judge Torresen's decision appeared to reflect a June ruling by the Supreme Court that curtailed such injunctions. The Trump administration has used the executive order to impose sanctions on four I.C.C. judges; the court's embattled prosecutor, Karim Khan; and Francesca Albanese, a special rapporteur for the United Nations who has worked with the court in its investigation of Israel's war in Gaza. Last year, the court issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, as well as the country's former defense minister and three Hamas officials. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Ms. Albanese was assisting the I.C.C. with 'campaigns of political and economic warfare, which threaten our national interests and sovereignty.' Ms. Albanese called the sanctions against her 'mafia techniques of intimidation' in a recent phone interview with The New York Times.
New York Post
a day ago
- New York Post
Call of Duty maker can't be held responsible for Uvalde, Texas elementary school shooter, lawyer argues
A lawyer for the maker of the video game Call of Duty argued Friday that a judge should dismiss a lawsuit brought by families of the victims of the Robb Elementary School attack in Uvalde, Texas, saying the contents of the war game are protected by the First Amendment. The families sued Call of Duty maker Activision and Meta Platforms, which owns Instagram, saying that the companies bear responsibility for promoting products used by the teen gunman. Three sets of parents who lost children in the shooting were in the audience at the Los Angeles hearing. Advertisement 4 An attorney representing the creator of the Call of Duty video game franchise says Superior Court Judge William Highberger should dismiss the lawsuit from the families of the school shooting victims from Robb Elementary School. via REUTERS Activision lawyer Bethany Kristovich told Superior Court Judge William Highberger that the 'First Amendment bars their claims, period full stop.' 'The issues of gun violence are incredibly difficult,' Kristovich said. Advertisement 'The evidence in this case is not.' She argued that the case has little chance of prevailing if it continues, because courts have repeatedly held that 'creators of artistic works, whether they be books, music, movies, TV or video games, cannot be held legally liable for the acts of their audience.' The lawsuit, one of many involving Uvalde families, was filed last year on the second anniversary of one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history. The gunman killed 19 students and two teachers. Advertisement Officers finally confronted and shot him after waiting more than an hour to enter the fourth-grade classroom. 4 The 2022 school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, was one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history, as 19 students and 2 teachers lost their lives. AP Kimberly Rubio, whose 10-year-old daughter Lexi was killed in the shooting, was among the parents who came from Texas to Southern California, where Activision is based, for the hearing. 'We traveled all this way, so we need answers,' Rubio said outside the courthouse. Advertisement 'It's our hope that the case will move forward so we can get those answers.' Another attorney for the families argued during the hearing that Call of Duty exceeds its First Amendment protections by moving into marketing. 'The basis of our complaint is not the existence of Call of Duty,' Katie Mesner-Hage told the judge. 4 Lawyers representing Call of Duty argued that their games are protected by the First Amendment. AP 'It is using Call of Duty as a platform to market weapons to minors.' The plaintiffs' lawyers showed contracts and correspondence between executives at Activison and gunmakers whose products, they said, are clearly and exactly depicted in the game despite brand names not appearing. Mesner-Hage said the documents show that they actually prefer being unlabeled because 'It helps shield them from the implication that they are marketing guns to minors,' while knowing that players will still identify and seek out the weapons. Kristovich said there is no evidence that the kind of product placement and marketing the plaintiffs are talking about happened in any of the editions of the game the shooter played. Advertisement The families have also filed a lawsuit against Daniel Defense, which manufactured the AR-style rifle used in the May 24, 2022, shooting. 4 At the court hearing in Los Angeles, California, three groups of parents who lost their children in the shooting were in attendance. via REUTERS Koskoff argued that a replica of the rifle clearly appears on a splash page for Call of Duty. Koskoff, a Connecticut lawyer, also represented families of nine Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims in a lawsuit against gunmaker Remington and got a $73 million lawsuit settlement. Advertisement He invoked Sandy Hook several times in his arguments, saying the shooters there and in Uvalde shared the same gaming obsession. Koskoff said the Uvalde shooter experienced 'the absorption and the loss of self in Call of Duty.' He said that immersion was so deep that the shooter searched online for how to obtain an armored suit that he didn't know only exists in the game. Video game is 'in a class of its own,' lawyer says Advertisement Koskoff played a clip from Call of Duty Modern Warfare, the game the shooter played, with a first-person shooter gunning down opponents. The shots echoed loudly in the courtroom, and several people in the audience slowly shook their heads. 'Call of Duty is in a class of its own,' Koskoff said. Kristovich argued for Activision that the game, despite its vast numbers of players, can be tied to only a few of the many U.S. mass shootings. Advertisement 'The game is incredibly common. It appears in a scene on 'The Office,'' she said. She added that it is ridiculous to assert that 'this is such a horrible scourge that your honor has to essentially ban it through this lawsuit.' Highberger told the lawyers he was not leaning in either direction before the hearing. He gave no time frame for when he will rule, but a quick decision is not expected. The judge did tell the plaintiffs' lawyers that their description of Activision's actions seemed like deliberate malfeasance, where their lawsuit alleges negligence. He said that was the biggest hurdle they needed to clear. 'Their conduct created a risk of exactly what happened,' Mesner-Hage told him. 'And we represent the people who are exactly the foreseeable victims of that conduct.' Meta's attorneys will make arguments on a similar motion next month.
