Tennessee student suspended for Instagram memes directed at principal sues school, officials

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A 17-year-old student is suing his Tennessee school district and two key faculty members for violating his free speech rights after he was suspended for memes he created directed at his principal and shared off-campus.

A federal lawsuit states former Tullahoma High School Principal Jason Quick and current Assistant Principal Derrick Crutchfield called the rising senior — identified as “I.P.” in court filings — into an office in August 2022 to question him over three images taken from the student’s personal Instagram account. Tullahoma is located about 60 miles southeast of Nashville, Tennessee.

The first image I.P. reposted from his father’s home in Alabama during summer vacation on May 22, 2022, shows Quick holding a box of vegetables with the text "My brotha." The second image, on June 9, 2022, which the student reposted during a family vacation to Italy, depicts Quick as an anime maid wearing a dress with cat ears and the text "Neko quick."

A third meme on August 2, 2022, shows Quick’s head superimposed over a character from the "Among Us" video game, as well as the cartoon character Mordecai from the animated show "Regular Show."

Quick and Crutchfield suspended I.P. originally for five days but after I.P.’s mother met with Quick, Crutchfield, the punishment was reduced to three days, the same amount as a fistfight, according to the lawsuit filed on July 19.

"I.P. intended the images to satirize, in I.P.'s view, Quick's overly serious demeanor," said the lawsuit, claiming the student is within his First Amendment rights to satirize or criticize government officials without fear of retribution.

Free-speech advocacy group: Student's memes meant to be 'tongue-in-cheek commentary'

According to the lawsuit, Quick relied on two Tullahoma City Schools policies to suspend the student. The first prohibits students, "whether at home or at school," from posting pictures that "result in the embarrassment, demeaning, or discrediting of any student or staff," regardless of whether the images substantially disrupt education.  

A U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 2021 case that unless a student’s off-campus expression "causes a substantial disruption at school, the job of policing their speech falls to parents, not the government." The High Court also added that courts must be more skeptical of a school’s efforts to regulate off-campus speech, "for doing so may mean the student cannot engage in that kind of speech at all."

Tullahoma High School also prohibits students from engaging in social media activity “unbecoming of a Wildcat.” The district could not be immediately reached for comment on Monday.

Quick resigned as principal on June 30.

Meanwhile, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free-speech advocacy group also known as FIRE, said in a statement Monday, the student "intended the images to be tongue-in-cheek commentary satirizing a school administrator he perceived as humorless."

Conor Fitzpatrick, a FIRE lawyer, and the student's lead attorney, said Monday that as long as the posts aren't disruptive, "the school cannot censor it." Fitzpatrick said his client is seeking unspecified monetary damages and requests the suspension be expunged from his student record.

STALKING OR FREE SPEECH?Critics say Supreme Court just made it harder to stop stalkers

Student's lawsuit says district's social media policy is vague, 'unconstitutional'

The lawsuit contends that the district's policy is vague and fails to give citizens sufficient guidance on how to stay within the law, describing it as "equally unconstitutional."

The suit also claims that not only does the district's social media violate the First Amendment, but also the 14th Amendment of due process and equal protection. The suit said I.P. is suing to protect the rights of fellow Tullahoma students to "express themselves and satirize those in power.”

When I.P. was suspended, the suit claims, Quick also asked Crutchfield to inform I.P. was suspended in order to create the appearance Quick was not personally involved in the ruling.

The lawsuit goes on to accuse Quick of intending to cause I.P. "emotional distress to deter I.P. from satirizing Quick going forward," after I.P. had such a severe panic attack in Quick’s office, the student was removed from the room via wheelchair by his mother, with the intention of going to the emergency room.

The suit argues that if I.P. and other students want to post nondisruptive content on social media that may criticize or satirize school officials, they will face discipline, "chilling their core protected speech.”