Carithers' mom inadvertently gave strength to this line of argument when she made the claim that Shah should have given her students detailed instructions about what they could and couldn't write. Doesn't the very assumption that underlies her statement -- that teachers can and should put restrictions on assignments and declare certain topics off-limits -- give strength to the idea that kids' civil liberties often need to be limited more than those of adults?

Sure, as Payzant said, the school should be "jealously guarding the principles of free expression." But that's only true up to a point, particularly because teachers have such a responsibility to teach kids about right and wrong.

Consider a hypothetical situation for a moment and you'll realize that institutions of learning routinely curb students' right to free expression in an effort to teach them about acceptable behavior: Imagine that one student wrote, "Johnny is a jackass" on the classroom chalkboard, referring to another student. The offender would likely be punished, perhaps suspended. And yet, if he or she were punished, his or her right to free speech would surely be infringed upon. Who would contest the punishment? Who would argue that the student should not be penalized lest his or her civil rights be violated?

Simply put, kids are subject to stricter rules than adults for the same reason that minors convicted of crimes like murder get more lenient sentences: They don't have a well-developed sense of right and wrong.

That argument on its own wouldn't be strong enough to explain why Carithers should be punished, because it's not wrong to write about murder, whether you're a kid or Stephen King. Carithers' case is different because he wrote about the murder of someone who he knew would be reading his story, which featured a murderer who sounded a lot like him.

If King did that, it would be difficult to punish him. (Might be worth a shot, though.) But one gets the impression that King wouldn't be that uninspired or threatening. Either Carithers didn't understand that his story would threaten and frighten his teacher, or he intended to threaten and frighten his teacher. Either way, he needs to learn that what he did was wrong.

Are Latin Academy and BTU officials -- and educators across America -- being so strict because they're still jumpy after Columbine? Of course they've been influenced by Columbine. But why assume that the tragedy has inspired overreaction instead of appropriate action? After all, according to the American Psychological Association, the possibility is high that children who make detailed plans to commit acts of violence will do so.

Similarly, one of the top warning signs of a troubled kid is an unusual interest in or preoccupation with weapons, bombs or violent entertainment, according to an organization called National School Safety and Security Services. What else is a story about murdering someone with a chain saw but a detailed plan to commit an act of violence and the perfect evidence that its author is unusually interested in violent entertainment?

In light of these considerations, it seems the argument to be made is not that Columbine has unnecessarily frightened teachers but, instead, that it has caused educators to be more aware and attuned to signs of psychologically disturbed kids. In fact, Latin Academy should require Carithers' mother to take him in for a psychological evaluation during his three days away from school.

Imagine that Carithers decided to write a horror story about killing himself rather than his teacher. And imagine that Shah read it, decided that Carithers had written a very horrifying story indeed and therefore satisfactorily completed his assignment. Imagine that she never mentioned it to him again and that Carithers then killed himself. Wouldn't Shah be condemned for her failure to respond to such an essay?

Of course she would. The nation would be united in its opinion that Carithers' writing was clearly a "cry for help" -- and just as united in its criticism of Shah as an irresponsible monster. So why is Latin Academy being criticized for its response to the essay he did write, which is just as much of a scream for attention?