<h3>Write a Story, Go to Jail</h3>
Brian Robertson was just months away from graduation at Moore High School in Moore, Oklahoma, last year when he found the beginnings of what he thought was a short story on a school computer. He copied the file to another computer, added some paragraphs to the initial text and then promptly got arrested.

Robertson, who was 18 when he wrote the story, was charged with a felony count of planning to cause serious bodily harm or death. The story he wrote, titled "Evacuation Orders," (PDF) described preparations for an armed invasion of his school that included directions to unnamed fellow commandos to kill the senior class principal and then plant plastic explosives around the campus.

After searching Robertson's car and his parents' home, authorities found no weapons, traces of explosive material or any other evidence that the teen was planning to attack his school.

But authorities said the story Robertson wrote was sufficient to charge him under an Oklahoma state statute, which was passed in the wake of school shootings across the country in the last few years.

The statute, passed in July 2001, makes it illegal for anyone to "plan, attempt, conspire or endeavor to perform an act of violence involving or intended to involve serious bodily harm or death of another person." Robertson, if convicted, faces up to 10 years in prison.

The case has the American Civil Liberties Union crying foul over suppression of free expression. Calling the statute vague and "overly broad," the ACLU says the law "criminalizes free thought and free expression," essentially making it illegal for anyone to even think about committing a crime. Robertson, who was charged in April 2002, is the first person to be tried under the law. His case goes to trial this week.

Students across the United States have been getting suspended and arrested for written work that authorities have deemed threatening. After two students in Colorado opened fire at Columbine High in 1999, killing 12 other students and a teacher, states and schools have been scrambling to find ways to protect students before violence occurs. But critics say they've been overreacting and violating constitutional rights.

Two years ago in San Jose, California, a 15-year-old boy was expelled from high school and sent to juvenile hall for 100 days after writing a "dark" poem in his honors English class.

"I can be the next kid to bring guns to kill students at school," he wrote in a poem titled "Faces." The student admitted to police that he was aware there were two guns and ammunition in a relative's house where he was living.

Another student in Michigan was suspended from school for posting passages on a website called "Satan's Web Page." Under the heading "Satan's mission for you this week," the student posted: "Stab someone for no reason then set them on fire throw them off of a cliff, watch them suffer and with their last breath, just before everything goes black, spit on their face."

While each of these cases involved underage students, Robertson faces more serious charges due to his age.

Robertson was in a Web design class at Moore High School in February 2002 when he says he found a Notepad file containing a paragraph titled "Evacuation Plans," which consisted of various instructions for taking shelter.

"It was pretty cool, I thought, so I just added on to it," Robertson said.

Robertson says the style of the writing set the tone for what he penned next. "The first paragraph was written in a militaristic style, so I got my mind set in a militaristic style and I just went from there," he said.

The text he wrote described using C-4 explosives to blow up the school and addressed what to do when police arrived. C-4 explosives were used in the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen three years ago and tore a 40-by-40-foot hole into the side of the destroyer.

About five weeks later, two students found the file on a computer and showed it to their teacher. Robertson was suspended from school for a year and prevented from graduating with his high school class. In order to complete the credits he needed to get his diploma, he took correspondence courses through the local university. Since his arrest he has had difficulty holding a job.

"I didn't know I could be charged with a felony for writing a story," he said.

Robertson's mother, Kathy, says Brian has produced dark writing in the past. "But he's not the only student who does this," she said. When she read the story in question she knew it was just "a figment of his imagination."

"Many students who are violent, you can see a pattern; they're constantly in trouble with school or withdrawn. But Brian is very gregarious. He's a fun-loving person and is very open. He's not the type who takes retribution," she said. Nonetheless, she supported his school suspension.

A former teacher herself, she said, "I know that in the day and time in which we live things are very scary." But she says the criminal charge went too far. "A felony will be with him for the rest of his life. That is so unfair."

Robertson says he lost friends as a result of the charges. Reporters later interviewed students at Moore who said they were frightened by news of his short story.

After his booking photo, which Robertson's mother describes as "not the most attractive photo," was flashed on the local news, Robertson's employer of two and a half years asked him to stop coming in.

"It was a really bad time for me," said Robertson.

Last December, Robertson's case was actually dismissed by a judge who ruled the law under which he was charged "unconstitutionally vague." In a briefing (PDF) in support of Robertson, lawyers for the ACLU wrote, "It is only natural that young people think, speak and write about the issues that confront them. In today's world, these issues certainly include drugs, sex, family discord and, of course, school violence."

ACLU lawyers also wrote that since Robertson's writing didn't indicate a specific time, date or "geographic points" for the attack, there was no evidence to show it was anything other than "literary musings."

Sara McFall, Robertson's attorney, calls Robertson's writing "disturbing," but argued in court, "If a story describing such things is evidence (of a plan to commit murder), then Stephen King would be serving a life sentence."

Although the judge in that hearing ruled to dismiss the case, the district attorney appealed to reinstate it.

McFall believes the district attorney is simply using the teen to get a badly written law revised.

While Assistant District Attorney Richard Sitzman said last year about Robertson's story, "if this is fiction, then it goes too far," he admitted in court (PDF) that he had trouble with the law he was using to charge Robertson. "I wish I hadn't been the first to file a charge under this statute.... It has caused me problems analytically from the day I first read it," he said.

He even likened the statute (PDF) to something out of George Orwell's book 1984. "And the thing that I am concerned about this statute the most is the way it's written perhaps outlaws thought."

He couldn't be reached for additional comment.

"I understand the reasoning behind taking it to the next level in the legal system," said McFall. "There's no way this law can be tested until they use (it) as a tool for prosecution, and someone like Brian stands up and fights the law."

"It's not a fair method, but it's the only method we have of testing a law.... Legislators are very hesitant to assess damages on their own work. Without public outcry, a law would never be repealed and reintroduced with new language, absent this kind of public concern," McFall said.

In the meantime, Robertson's family has posted a $10,000 bond to release him on bail. And they've had to refinance their house and shell out tens of thousands of dollars for his defense. "It's really hit all of us hard," Kathy Robertson said.

Kathy Robertson has spent the last year and a half working hard to defend her son. She set up a website about the issue and just this week she uncovered evidence that may bolster his case. Despite the fact that her son has always maintained that he didn't create the story "Evacuation Plans," but merely added to a paragraph that was already written, no one has ever come forward to admit writing the first paragraph.

But this week, Kathy Robertson suddenly got the idea to run a Google search on the first sentence of the story. The search results revealed the exact paragraph buried deep in a page of the University of Arkansas website. A second search on HotBot revealed another university website with the same paragraph.

After a bit of sleuthing, she discovered that the paragraph comes on a CD-ROM that comes with a textbook for learning Adobe PageMaker. The paragraph is the sample text used in a template for creating ads in PageMaker. The text describes evacuation plans for taking shelter in case of a hurricane.

Kathy Robertson says she's willing to bet that someone in her son's Web design class had loaded the CD-ROM onto the computer he used to write the story.

She's hoping that this bit of evidence may prove that her son's story was an inspired piece of fiction. That may or may not be enough to finally get the case dismissed.

McFall says she's worried that if the case does go to trial, a jury's response would be unpredictable. "There are some people who will fall very squarely on the side that this was nothing but a story. Then you'll have others who will say we have an obligation to lock everybody up until we're sure they're not going to shoot us."

It's an issue, she says, that has the potential for "stirring a lot of emotion." Hopefully, she says, the facts of Robertson's case won't get lost in the emotional tug of war.
<h6>Source: Wired</h6>

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00"> There should be a "stupidity" law for people with no common sense. I would like to see it applied to many law makers and judges who make stupid rulings.

Robertson's case was actually dismissed by a judge so this judge made a sound decision. What about the employer who said he was fired. Are you allowed to fire someone because they have been charged but have not yet been proven guilty? Are there not laws to protect people against such things.</font>

[ 08-26-2003, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

The employer would reply that he was afraid he would lose business if Brian was allowed to work. Since he lost friends and other students said they were afraid of him, then obviously the employer was correct. What this says about the students at that school as well as law enforcement in that town is best left unsaid. After all I don't want to be charged with anything by the brave and clever people of Moore.

<font color=deepskyblue>This is part of the fallout from the Columbine High tragedy (as mentioned in the article). The two teens that committed that atrocity planned the event for over a year, and discussed their plans extensively via e-mail and Instant Messages. When the police found searched their homes and computers, they found large files listing exact details of the plannned killing. Because of this, there was a large outcry saying "WHY? WHY didn't the parents or authorities investigate these plans BEFORE the slaughter occurred. IF ONLY they had taken action ahead of time, those 12 students and teacher might still be alive today."

The result of such a tremendous public outcry is to introduce a broad, sweeping law that allows authorities to do just that...investigate and take action on this type of activity before the final event occurs.

I agree that all factors have to be looked at and it sounds obvious that this student didn't fit the "profile" of the Columbine shooters. But the student also has an obligation to be aware of the possible consequences of this type of story. Our Freedom of Speech is NOT absolute. You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, you can't go to an appearance by the President and joke about having a gun in your pocket, and it isn't smart to write a story about blowing up your high school and killing fellow students just for kicks.

Perhaps the student could have gone to his English teacher and told him/her about his story idea and asked if he could get extra-credit for writing it. That way, everybody knows up front he is just doing it as a class assignment or for a better grade. Instead, he writes a story about a school being taken over and blown up by him and some colleagues. Even his own mother supported the suspension from school for his actions....but I also agree with her that a felony conviction is too serious of an overreaction all the way around.</font>

"Here you go little American youngster...you can watch all the violence you want on tv and read any number of violent books, but dont think of creating anything like this yourself or you will pay with your future. You will be imaginative and creative in ways that we say or you will pay."

<font color="orange">Well, I'll start off by saying that this guy has approximately the common sense of a piece of toilet paper. Everybody knows that things like this, kill lists, all those bad things are not allowed. I mean seriously, our school has a kid in it who was expelled from elsewhere for making death threats. It is a well known fact that writing stupid stuff like that can get you in serious disciplinary trouble. Also, the school has a right to restrict free speech. You can't bring in a story about explicit sexual activity, nor of extreme violence, in most schools. It is their prerogative to ban/limit the literary content in the schools. As such, I agree with the suspension.

But a felony charge? That's absolutely ridiculous, IMHO. Felonies are for things like stockpiling weapons and violent crime. This kid needs a good kick in the arse, not jail time. This is one of those cases where it should be about changing the kid - he should have known his writings were unacceptable. But since he didn't, and he's young, why not teach him the errors of his ways? Maybe give him some courses in creative writing. This kid obviously has a bit of potential (I guess the story was halfway decent, to attract this kind of attention.) Felony charges are not the answer - lock him up and forget about it? Suspend this kid, ground him, yell at him, even spank him for all I care, but putting him in prison is a lazy, ineffective solution.

I wonder how much air time the prosecutor's getting... ;) </font>

I take seven (kids) from (Columbine), stand 'em all in line
Add an AK-47, a revolver, a nine
a Mac-11 and it oughta solve the problem of mine
and that's a whole school of bullies shot up all at one time

-- Eminem

<h0>The "(" parenthesis marks indicate that these lyrics were edited from even the "explicit lyrics" version of the album. There are a lot of these lyric holes in this particular album, which had lyrics cut in 3 or 4 places just prior to production. Maybe Em was afraid he'd go to jail??</h0>

Well it does seem ridiculous to charge this youngster, if there isn't more to the story that is. You can't really convict the majority based on the actions of a majority. After all not all dark haired white amles with moustaches are advocating genocide. ;) So when will Eminem be charged?

[ 08-26-2003, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: WillowIX ]

Hello Mr Orwell, the Thought Police are here to see you know.

I just hope the Assistant DA Richard Sitzman, is successfully able to use this case to get the statue negated. It's sad that Brian's life has to be turned inside out do to it though. Maybe he can work a book deal when it's all over.

Wow! What would they have charged Stephen King with if this law had existed when he began writing? 20 years? 30 years?

<font color=deepskyblue>While the various references to Orwell and Stephen King make for good drama, they are overlooking a couple of significant facts about this case.

First of all, I don't recall any books by Stephen King written in "first person" style...where he is outlining a plan for himself and unnamed colleagues to commit the murder of several people he has decided he doesn't like. Secondly, Stephen King's books have always been written and submitted for publication, not kept hidden on some computer file and discovered accidentally by a third party. And - of course - most of Stephen King's books were published long before the series of attacks and killings that occurred in our public schools during the 1990's.

On the other hand, Brian Robertson wrote a story centered around himself and "unnamed colleagues" going into the school, taking it over, killing several people, and blowing the building up. He even outlined (in detail) how to respond to the police when they showed up. Also, this wasn't done in the privacy of Brian's room on his own PC. Instead, he wrote this story (and saved it) on a computer at school. The other significant factor is that he didn't tell anyone about this story (as far as I can tell from the article). The story was accidentally discovered later by two other students. If Brian was going to write such a controversial type story on this particular subject, he should have had the good sense to let a teacher know about it ahead of time so that he could prove it was just a work of fiction from his imagination. Remember, even his own mother agreed with him being suspended from the school for his lack of judgement.

I agree the felony charge is completely over the top, but let's look at this from a different perspective. Suppose - just for the sake of argument - that Brian Robertson HAD been planning to carry out this "fictional" attack on his school. Let us also suppose that this story of his wasn't discovered until after that attack had occurred.....What would be the general reaction if it suddenly became known that this kid who blew up the school and killed the senior class president (among others) had written a story on the school's own computer several months earlier detailing these exact events? There would be harsh criticism of the authorities in general (and the school system more particularly) for "ignoring obvious evidence" that was right in front of thier faces.

Crime prevention is a difficult goal to accomplish in reality. Because until the person or persons actually commit the crime, one can never be sure if they are actually planning to do it or not. When preemptive measures are put in place, some innocents will invariably be caught in the web also. That is the sad and unfortunate price that has to be paid in order to prevent another tragedy such as Columbine.

Oh....one last point that caught my interest...if the ACLU has taken such a huge interest in Brian's case, why have his parents had to spend thousands of dollars for his defense? Why hasn't the ACLU provided them with free legal representation? Haven't they done this in other cases?</font>

There are plenty of authors who write in the first person (HG Wells's 'The Time Machine', for example), so this is really a matter of creative taste - as for the subject matter, it's just that - subject matter.

Stephen King happened to be a talented author with the drive to get his work published - less confident and/or 'good' authors may not have the same luck - so should we lock them up because they write 'boring' pieces that publishers won't touch?

Pick up several teenage diaries and I can guarantee that at least 30% of them will contain references of bad thought and bad deeds that they want to carry out - that's just being a teenager. Writing is often a way of releasing pent up anger - it in no way means that the person will acutally commit the acts that he/she describes. All healthy stuff of kids.

This is about administering first aid to a gunshot would without asking why the victim got shot in the first place. It would be more effective to have stricter gun controls, train the teachers (and parents) to better notice the signs of teenage-angst, employ councellors to help kids get through those wild-hormone induced depression/anger and so on - of course that does cost more money than a simple law that locks up everyone who even considers a bad act...

There are plenty of authors who write in the first person (HG Wells's 'The Time Machine', for example), so this is really a matter of creative taste - as for the subject matter, it's just that - subject matter.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>Gosh, I don't remember H.G. Well's talking about killing his peers and destroying public buildings. I guess I better go back and re-read <font color=white>The Time Machine</font> since I apparantly missed that part. ;) </font>

Stephen King happened to be a talented author with the drive to get his work published - less confident and/or 'good' authors may not have the same luck - so should we lock them up because they write 'boring' pieces that publishers won't touch?</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>Actually, I read an article once stating that Stephen King had basically given up on his career as an author due to the many rejections he received. In frustration, he threw the manuscript for his newest story in the trash. It was his wife who recovered the manuscript and convinced him to give it one more try....and that manuscript became his first published novel.

Still, even with his vaunted success, I would dare say that if Stephen King decided to suddenly switch from stories of the supernatural and write a novel in first person where he and several associates are planning to assassinate the President of the United States and blow up the White House...even HE would have trouble getting printed (and he would probably receive a visit from the Secret Service regarding his sudden change in writing style). As you said, it all centers on the subject matter, and the fact is there are some subjects that simply aren't wise to write about - especially in the fashion in which Brian Robertson did it.</font>

Pick up several teenage diaries and I can guarantee that at least 30% of them will contain references of bad thought and bad deeds that they want to carry out - that's just being a teenager. Writing is often a way of releasing pent up anger - it in no way means that the person will acutally commit the acts that he/she describes. All healthy stuff of kids.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color=deepskyblue>I agree with you on this point. Writing can be a healthy means of release for teenagers and certainly not all teenagers that entertain these "dark thoughts" actually plan to act on them. But the law which Robertson broke was put into place specifically as a reaction to Columbine, where two affluent teens plotted for over a year to massacre several students. These plans were detailed in their journals and on their home PC's. When all of these "signs" were found after the fact, there was a public outcry. "Why didn't the parents and teachers notice the danger signs?" "How could these teens plot such a horrible act for over a year without anybody learning about it?" This led to cries for laws to prevent such acts in the future. Of course, the history of any such law has been a huge overreaction in the way it was applied. Because of the multiple school attacks, ALL weapons were banned from school grounds...this led to cases of children being expelled or suspended from school for bringing a butter knife in their lunch to spread jelly on their sandwich. Many schools adopted a "Zero Tolerance" policy regarding drug use...this led to students being suspended for bring asthma medicine to school and one youngster was charged with "intent to distribute" when he offered a classmate a Tylenol for his headache.

A preventative law - by necessity - must be broad in nature. Unfortunately, this inevitably leads to innocents being punished as well as those who actually planned to use drugs, or bring real knives to school, or to actually go on a shooting spree due to the frustration and angst they feel.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>And it's a lot easier to blame the government for everything rather than expect an individual to accept responsibility for their actions or poor judgement.

Calling for stricter gun laws is just as reactionary as the law Brian Robertson was arrested under. It's nothing more than a different colored bandaid applied to the same gunshot wound after the fact...and it is no more effective at preventing or eliminating the root cause of the problem. All of the guns used in the various school attacks were (TTBOMK) legally owned.

Training teachers to recognize teenage angst goes without saying, and occurs every year. In addition to the formal training and workshops teachers attend, they get tons of on-the-job experience. Training parents is an impossible task..because then you have the government interfering in the private lives of citizens.

As for the counselors, school systems now require ALL Guidance Counselors to have a Masters Degree in Counseling and two years experience before applying for the job. In fact, the Guidnace Counselor has to meet stricter requirements than the teachers do. I know this because I applied for a Guidance Counselor position at a local high school at the end school year back in May. While I think I would make a wonderful counselor, I unfortunately don't have the necessary education or experience. So our school systems are far more serious about having qualified counselors available than they used to be.

So - as you can see - these other "costly measures" are in place and are being pursued by various school systems across the country.</font>

Check out Stephen King's Bachman Books. While not in 1st person, one of these early stories published under his psuedonymn discusses a kid with a gun who takes over his class. It's actually the first place I ever encountered such a tale, real or imagined.

Exactly my point - how is it that they managed to have easy access to such weapons? I don't advocate a ban on weapons (although frankly why it is legal to own an assault rifle is beyond me), but there are additional and painless measures that can be undertaken to strengthen control.

For example, why no require that firearms must be stored under lock and key in a properly approved container to prevent unauthorised access? Or why not have a law that requires gun owners to store their weapons complete with a gun trigger lock?

Why aren't the following measures mandatory in *all* US states:
"Child Access Prevention" (CAP) law (as above)
Juvenile possession law (ban guns for the under-18's)
A gun permit to be shown before purchase
All legally owned firearms registered with the local police...

and so on. There are a whole series of measures that can be used to tighten the law without restricting ownership. Right now, because the laws are set at state level - they make very little sense. For example - I wouldn't be able to purchase a weapon in NY without producing a permit - but no problem, I can just hop over the state line to PA and get it there where I do not have to produce a permit...

I have an idea, we should reate a group of people that would have the right to look into our houses, in our computers, diaries, and documents. We should give these people very broad laws as tool to enforce their rules, and while we are at it, I have a good name for them. Why not call them the gestapo?

After all, the ends justify the mean, right? Why care if a few innocents persons and some civil rights get baffled in the way of Justice, right?

Yes, that's true. I don't agree with it at all though. There's only so much "prevention" that can be put in place before it becomes a worse problem than the crimes. What they should have done is investigate and determine if there was a true crime being planned. Unfortunately, real work like that is terribly unappealing to most law agencies. Much better to sweep all possible problem people into a cell and sort them out later.

Here's a quote from someone famous and wise:

"Those who would trade liberties for security deserve neither liberty, nor security."


It makes sense, doesn't it? There's no use in putting additions on the legislative house if you're going to let the foundation crumble in the process!

[ 09-05-2003, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Sir Kenyth ]

I wasn't talking about the Patriot Act I and II (what you described is already legal under Patriot I) - I was talking about gun law....

I wasn't talking about the Patriot Act I and II (what you described is already legal under Patriot I) - I was talking about gun law.... </font>[/QUOTE]I don't know what you said, I didn't really follow the thread, I simply posted my opinion after getting the pulse of the thread.

That's honest of you to say so...

I just read yesterday that all the charges were dropped in this case. Sadly though under Oklahoma law if you are charged with a felonyt for over year it stays on your record, unless you were aquitted by a trail. Since there was no trail he will have the felony on his record. Unless he can sue the state to get it removed.

Wow! That's really unfair!