News
< Disregard of Media Rights in Nation’s Courtrooms | Main | Book Groups Call for Patriot Act Amendment >
PEN USA AMICUS BRIEF RE:GEORGE T.
May 27, 2004
A case currently before the California Supreme Court re: a high school student’s poem which raises important issues for all writers. UPDATE! (7/22/04) The California Supreme Court this morning issued a great opinion reversing George T.’s conviction of making a criminal threat by distributing his poem to fellow students. The Court relied heavily on the amicus brief excerpting large parts of it. You can read the opinion at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S111780.pdf
Story Continued...
Case Summary
Update: The California Supreme Court appeared inclined Thursday (5/27/04) to overturn the felony conviction of a teenage boy whose violent poetry was deemed a criminal threat.
In re George T., a case currently before the California Supreme Court raises important issues for poets, writers and all of those dedicated to the craft of the written word. The issue before the court is whether the distribution of a poem written by a high school student to some of his classmates constitutes a “criminal threat” under California Penal Code §422. The juvenile court and the Court of Appeal ruled that it did. Each court interpreted the poem as a demonstrating a serious and real intention to commit a crime.
The poem at issue was titled “Faces.” It was written by George T. (also known as Julius), a student who was new to his school. Julius gave the poem to some of his female classmates to read. The poem read as follows:
Faces
Who are these faces around me?
Where did they come from?
They would probably become the
next doctors or loirs or something. All
really intelligent and ahead of their
game. I wish I had a choice on
what I want to be like they do.
All so happy and vagrant. Each
Original in their own way. They
Make me want to puke. For I am
Dark, Destructive & Dangerous. I
Slap on my face of happiness but
Inside I am evil!! For I can be
the next kid to bring guns to
kill students at school. So Parents
watch your children cuz I’m BACK!!
by: Julius AKA Angel.
The page on which the poem appeared was labeled “Dark Poetry.” Julius testified that he used that label so that a reader would understand that his writings were fictional.
The First Amendment protects threatening speech unless such speech is an “unequivocal, unconditional and specific expression of intention immediately to inflict injury.” Therefore, California’s threat statute, California Penal Code §422, requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the speaker willfully threatened to inflict great bodily harm; (2) the speaker intended that the statement be taken as a realistic threat, even if the speaker did not actually intend to do the act;(3) the statement under the circumstances in which it was made was so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to convey to the person to whom it was directed a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat; (4) the statement actually caused the recipient to fear for his or her safety; and (5) the recipient’s fear was reasonable.
The juvenile court found that Julius had threatened two students by giving them the poem. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction placing great weight on the facts that the poem was not a class assignment and that Julius did not have a friendly relationship with either of the students.
The amicus brief takes the position that when the purported threat is rendered in creative expression, there must be something independently threatening about the manner of distribution in order for the poem to be punishable as a criminal threat. As the introduction to the brief explains:
Poetry, and indeed all creative and artistic expression, is an ill-suited vehicle for the delivery of a true threat. While true threats are valueless and designed only to terrorize, poetry is designed to explore emotions, persona, and voice, to enlighten, and to entertain. While true threats must be direct and unequivocal, poetry is inherently ambiguous.
Amici curiae are noteworthy literary artists and organizations supporting literary artists concerned that a decision by this Court that does not adequately consider the nature of poetry as an artistic medium will chill the creation and dissemination of literary works that explore human emotions, no matter how dark, and will discourage young people from experimenting with poetic persona. Amici curiae urge this Court to tread carefully in determining when artistic expression may be considered a true threat.
In order to ensure that the fundamental First Amendment right to freedom of artistic expression is not infringed upon, this Court must apply a strong presumption against finding that artistic expression is a true threat. This presumption may be overcome only if the circumstances surrounding the communication of a poem or other creative work somehow transform it from protected expression into an unprotected true threat.
When this presumption is applied to the record before this Court, Julius’s conviction cannot stand. Julius’s poem explored dark themes, but it was clearly and purposefully a poem, a work of creative expression. Nothing in the circumstances of Julius’s sharing this poem with his classmates indicates either an intent to threaten his classmates or any reasonable basis upon which his classmates should have perceived the poem to be a personal threat.