The Teen Who Cried “There’s a Rapist in Our School”
C.S. Lewis said, “You can make anything by writing.”
Aela Mannsmann seemed to have heeded Lewis’ advice. In a matter of just a few words, she crafted a mystery — a well-plotted teaser written in a manner to dramatize what in reality is an example of the “anything” Lewis alluded to: Mannsmann’s opinion.
On its face, Mannsmann’s “tale” seems innocent — a 15-year-old girl making her classmates aware of a school rapist. However, her word choice unequivocally suggested that she was aware of this individual’s identity. Yet despite advertising her knowledge of the “who” in her “whodunnit,” Mannsmann refrained from revealing his/her identity. Instead, she dared, even taunted, this person to come forward.
But was this person even real? Or was it a character Mannsmann had created to add tension to a true crime tale? To add an air of mystique to a fictional crime drama?
We live in an age when the First Amendment is vigorously being challenged. Whether by pen or keypad, speech has become a figurative weapon of mass destruction. With the increasing popularity of social media, the dissemination of disinformation and defamatory statements is occurring at a feverish rate. Contentious content and vigorous viewpoints are the norm. Even impassioned and hyperbolic forms of speech are typically protected under our Constitution.
Yet increased access to information brings increased potential for defamation and actual malice. Worse case scenario, innocent persons are accused of malicious activities, even heinous crimes. In a matter of just a few retweets, an accused’s reputation can be destroyed forever. Even when such false allegations or opinions based on erroneous information are circulated in error and later retracted, the harm has been done and the damaging content persists.
Protection from viewpoint discrimination is one of our First Amendment freedoms. In Matal v. Tam, the Supreme Court affirmed: “[G]iving offense is a viewpoint”, even when such points of view are perceived as disparaging.
But equally as dangerous as promoting “fake” content is publicizing viewpoints that are premised on falsehoods.
Recently, it appears that 15-year old Aela Mannsmann did just this. The teenager posted sticky notes reading: “[t]here’s a rapist in our school and you know who it is” on the walls of two girls’ bathrooms at Cape Elizabeth High School. Mannsmann had decided to exercise her First Amendment rights because she believed that school administrators hadn’t appropriately responded to allegations of sexual misconduct/assault.
An advocate for sexual assault awareness and victims’ rights, Mannsmann, dismayed by such lack of attention, additionally took it upon herself to plaster an albeit ambiguous (and arguably inflammatory) message designed to “alert” female school mates of an unnamed perpetrator among them.
Not to belittle the teen’s actions but her “Chicken Little”-esque reaction of “[T]here’s a rapist in the school” could have generated an adverse reaction different from the fifty or so fellow students who decided to protest Mannsmann’s suspension following the incident. These Post-It notes could alternatively have evoked panic and anxiety among her classmates. This hypothetical begs the question of whether the pros of alarming others by drawing attention to sensitive subject matter outweighs the cons of prompting alarm and fear, particularly among high school students.
Facing 3-day suspension for posting these notes, Mannsmann, via her mother, sued the school district, alleging that the teen was merely exercising her free speech to draw awareness to sexual assault.
Although liberal First Amendment laws are critical to a vital democracy, one could argue, however, that Mannsmann’s reliance upon our speech liberties under the circumstances is a bit exploitative.
Moreover, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the school district following Mannsmann’s suspension, claiming that her act was merely a “public stance as an ally for victims and survivors of sexual violence.” In essence, the ACLU is arguing that the pending litigation has broader implications on the free speech rights of students.
Last Thursday, the teenager was granted a (temporary) reprieve when Lance Walker, a federal court judge, issued a preliminary injunction barring the school from suspending Mannsmann pending her lawsuit.
But legalities aside, whether her message was intended as a prank or public safety message, under either scenario, the content contained in these notes was based solely on her opinion or unverified information. Perhaps Mannsmann’s viewpoint wouldn’t be considered by a court to be “offensive” or “incendiary” speech. Yet regardless of whether her objective was malevolent or benevolent in spirit, it is highly probable that an audience of teenagers under these or similar conditions would likely feel anxious or alarmed upon learning they had classes with or ate lunch among a sex offender.
Consider the difference between the following statements: “[T]here’s a rapist in the school” versus “[T]here’s a rapist in the school and you know who it is.” While Mannsmann could have spread the former message, which would have effectively conveyed a need to address sexual assault crimes; instead, she added the ambiguous yet pointed assertion: “…and you know who it is” as if to infer that she is aware of a specific incident of rape or person who has committed sexual assault.
Instead of limiting her notes to what she contends was the key point — advocating on behalf of sexual assault victims and drawing greater awareness to rape — Mannsmann, however, felt compelled to disseminate a message that clearly suggested that a fellow student was a rapist.
This distinction in language between the foregoing claims could arguably lead the reader to conclude that Mannsmann’s message was intended as a hoax. A provocative claim intended to provoke fear among her classmates. Therefore, instead of simply alerting others, these notes would likely cause female peers to worry about their physical safety on-campus. Further, the ensuing gossip among the student body (and, by extension, parents of students and school administrators) as to the identity of this unnamed rapist is a critical factor to consider.
Cape Elizabeth’s bullying policy is broad in scope. However, it does explicitly state: “creating an intimidating or hostile educational environment” and/or “interfering with the student’s academic performance” as examples of bully behavior.
Maybe Mannsmann’s behavior don’t necessarily constitute as “bullying” per se, pursuant to Cape Elizabeth’s standards; however, it did result in 47 students reportedly having been interviewed by the school principal related to the allegation. In addition, the subsequent investigation among the student body resulted in a particular male student having felt targeted and allegedly shunned by peers, according to the district. Thus, as mentioned previously, Mannsmann’s goal might have been well-intended in theory; but in reality, her actions resulted in the need to expend school district resources perhaps unnecessarily and cause undue trauma to at least one other student.
Moreover, one could reasonably contend that the school administration’s prying into individual students’ affairs resulting from Mannsmann’s views in turn violated their respective privacy rights.
Despite the school’s attempt to enforce its bullying policy and suspend Mannsmann for what are, at minimum, disruptive activities that directly impacted her peers and intimidated one student (or more), Judge Walker issued a temporary order blocking her suspension. The District Court judge’s ruling reflected that another court would likely overturn her suspension based on free speech and Title IX federal law that prohibits gender discrimination.
The Judge ruled specifically that the posted notes were “neither frivolous nor fabricated, took place within the limited confines of the girls’ bathroom…” Additionally, he stated that they were “not disruptive of school discipline.”
Most notably, Judge Walker reasoned that Mannsmann’s case is of public interest and thereby sends a message to other students that they too could “be denied access to school simply because [her] viewpoint offends the sensibilities of school administrators.”
But is Mannsmann’s viewpoint offensive to school administrators? Or is the impending suspension merely an effort to hold Mannsmann accountable for disruptive behavior? Student interviews, administrative investigations, student walk-out — each is a definitive example of disruptive behavior during school hours. While students have the right, and should be encouraged to speak freely on-campus, shouldn’t there be consequences when such views interfere with or impede the rights of others?
The Hill, for example, argues that Mansmann’s flyers should be regarded as a “rape awareness note” as if to infer that she and other female students were performing a civic duty to benefit their peers. Notwithstanding its anonymity as to identifying an alleged perpetrator or specific incident, proclaiming “there’s a rapist in our school…” based on a ill-formed opinion without any ramifications for making what is a false statement could set a dangerous precedent, especially for our youth.
For example, what if a teenaged girl feels spurned by her crush? Would it be acceptable for her to accuse this individual of sexual assault or harassment without basis? Of course not. Mannsmann’s actions, though, could easily motivate revenge-type behavior. Teenagers are formidable and highly impressionable. Thus, sanctioning attention-grabbing actions could pose negative consequences such as creating a hostile school environment and arousing gossip among students.
Permitting teenagers broad freedom to vocalize their viewpoints is different than making public statements that are accusatory in nature or allege a possible crime. The nature of both should be taken seriously, regardless of whether the purported victim or offender is identified by name or not. Teenagers often lack necessary self-awareness to exercise sound judgment as to whether a particular statement or certain information is appropriate to publicize. Discretion most often develops with age. Minor children are legally prohibited from voting and consuming alcohol because they are still learning how to act responsibly, think critically, and make good decisions.
Therefore, adults — parents, teachers — are responsible for teaching and guiding our youth as to what types of content and viewpoints are appropriate to share. Discernment is acquired via reinforcement and punishment, when appropriate; not by feigning ignorance and allowing teens to say whatever they want, wherever they want.
Mannsmann’s motivations, malicious or not, ultimately resulted in her circulating a controversial point of view intended to draw attention to both the seriousness of sexual assault and the existence of a perpetrator on-campus. Her decision to include a pointed allegation of criminal wrongdoing cannot and should not be overlooked. Therefore, the question of whether hers is constitutionally-protected speech leads us down a slippery slope.
Is Mannsmann’s message one of promoting awareness? Or is it the proclamation of an alarmist? She admittedly posted these notes because she felt it was her only recourse to arouse a response from school administration. Her method of garnering attention was to create controversy, which in that of itself isn’t bad; however, such conjuring can have a negative impact and scare a target audience.
Perhaps Mannsmann’s actions are isolated to this single instance and she becomes wary of the potential derogatory effect any future posting might have. Lesson learned; no harm, no foul. But what if she (or her classmates) continue to routinely post similar content or views? Should the (or any) school repeatedly tolerate this activity?
Should one student’s right to free speech supersede the privacy rights of other classmates?
And what if Mannsmann does become aware of a specific occurrence of rape or the identity of a sexual perpetrator after her “Chicken Little”-inspired pronouncement? Would she be considered credible? Would her allegations be taken seriously by school administration or the authorities given her history? Did she consider the possibility that spreading this type of “information” might sully her reputation and impact her credibility among peers and adults?
The takeaway lesson is this: the First Amendment might offer a great deal of immunity for the views we express and the content we share, but it can’t shield us from certain liability. That said, whenever you write “anything,” make sure it’s worth the risk of publishing.
