A midstate high school student's parents have filed a federal lawsuit claiming their son's free speech rights were violated when he was suspended for making what they claim was a sarcastic comment on Facebook about a bomb threat.

The U.S. Constitution

Michael and Jill Lordan's lawsuit against Central York School District centers on the events following a bomb threat that forced evacuation of the high school on Oct. 23.

After leaving the school, their son, a ninth-grader identified in the lawsuit only by his initials, posted an entry on his Facebook page stating, "Plot twist: They don't find the bomb and it goes off tomorrow."

That prompted a probe by school officials, who suspended the boy from class and extracurricular activities for 23 days, according to the complaint filed in U.S. Middle District Court.

School district spokeswoman Julie Romig said Friday that the district doesn't comment on pending litigation. However, she added, "We plan to make a vigorous defense and we are confident we will prevail."

In their suit, the Lordans claim their 15-year-old son was not trying to stoke concern about the bomb threat. Rather, they contend, his Facebook post was "an expression of (his) anxiety regarding the bomb threat and a misplaced attempt at humor."

They claim his use of the term "plot twist" would have been recognized by his peers as an attempt at "sarcasm and irony." He had used the term in a tweet he sent during an earlier intruder drill and had not been confronted by school officials, the suit states.

The parents assert as well that their son's Facebook post didn't disrupt the function of the school and did not constitute a threat against anyone.

It did trigger a reaction by school officials. According to the suit, after learning of the post school officials contacted the boy's father and tracked down the student at an away football game at Red Lion High School.

After meeting with the teen at the game, Superintendent Michael Snell imposed a 10-day suspension, pending further investigation, the suit states. Two weeks later, following a disciplinary hearing, the teen was hit with an additional 13-day suspension.

He also was questioned by Springettsbury Township police, who did not file criminal charges, according to the suit.

The parents claim the penalty levied on their son was based in part on false conclusions that he admitted to posting a bomb threat. His Facebook post caused no "substantial disruption" to the school as administrators alleged, they argue.

The Lordans stress that their son's Facebook comment was made off school property and not on school time and was protected free speech under the U.S. Constitution. They claim, too, that district officials punished their son under "vague and over broad policies (that) prohibit and chill speech that is protected by the First Amendment."

Due to his suspension, their son's grade-point average declined, he missed playing in the final games of the football season, couldn't participate in or even watch the school play and "experienced a drop in confidence, self-esteem, trust of authority and enjoyment of school," the Lordans contend.

He even "asked his parents to explore alternatives to the district for his education," the suit states.

The parents are asking the court to declare that the district's policies that "punish speech" that occurs off school property is unconstitutional. They also want the suspension removed from their son's school records and seek "reasonable damages" to be awarded at a trial.

Randy Lee, a Widener Law School professor, said the Lordan case is likely to be fought out under the auspices of a 1969 ruling the U.S. Supreme Court issued regarding free speech rights in public schools. That decision stemmed from a case where high school students wore arm bands to protest the Vietnam War.

Lee said the 1969 ruling determined that school officials in imposing penalties in such cases must show that a student acted in a manner that could reasonably be expected to cause "substantial disruption" to school operations.

"That's what the arguments are going to come down to" in the Lordan dispute, he said.