When does writing raise red flags?

CEDAR RAPIDS - Swastikas. Skeletons. Blood. Gore. Then this: 'Valentine's Day. It's going down.”

In the days and years before Lindsay Souvannarath, 23, was arrested last weekend in connection with a plot to carry out a massacre at mall in a Halifax, Nova Scotia, the recent Coe College graduate authored an assortment of dark writings. She shared her work, often involving violent thoughts and ideas, through social media, blogs and class assignments.

Coe's literary magazine, the Coe Review, published some of her work. An essay entitled 'My Pet Skeleton” made the July 2013 edition.

Professors and peers at the Cedar Rapids college remember her as a loner with a gift for writing, which occasionally drifted into what one has described as 'forbidden territory.” In hindsight, as has been true in other acts of violence, some have asked, 'Should we have seen it coming?”

Academic and law enforcement experts alike say not necessarily - a fine line exists between cathartic or creative expression and dangerous or potentially criminal behavior. Walking that line means balancing the need to protect free speech with the need to keep the community safe.

Souvannarath, most recently from Illinois, and a Canadian co-defendant are being held on bail on murder conspiracy charges. A court in Halifax set their trial for March 6.

Souvannarath 'is a dark writer who perhaps didn't know where she crossed the line,” said Christa Angelios, a Coe senior who worked with her writing as co-editor of the Coe Review. 'But that doesn't make dark art an indicator for this. There's a market for dark art.”

Dark writing and online posts translate into violent or criminal behavior only a fraction of the time, and Angelios said she's concerned cases like this will stifle creativity.

'I'm worried that people will be too quick to point the finger at artists, and that could lead to censorship,” she said. 'It's important that artists not be robbed of their freedom of expression.”

At the same time, some experts believe taking a measured response to apparently disturbed writing - even having a talk with the author or conducting some 'quiet background checking” - often is better than doing nothing.

'We always say, if you've got a gut feeling that this is just not right, give us a call,” said Jane Caton, with the University of Iowa's Threat Assessment Program. 'I'd rather know about it and be wrong than never had heard about it.”

‘A chance to assess the risk'

The UI established its Threat Assessment Program in 2008 in response to the Board of Regents' security policy charging campuses with providing threat assessment and management services. The program involves eight team members from multiple disciplines, including law enforcement, mental health, student and faculty services, legal services and organizational effectiveness.

They meet every other week to review cases but also are available to respond to faculty, staff and student concerns at any time, Caton said. Some issues are low risk while others warrant more attention. The team deals with suicidal students, fired employees and alarming writing - both in the academic setting and online.

If faculty members consult with the team about a paper or an online posting, members will dig a bit deeper - searching social media, checking criminal records and talking with residence assistants, roommates, college deans and others.

In some cases, team members might talk with the student about his or work to gain a better understanding.

'This gives us a chance to assess the risk,” Caton said.

Based on their findings, team members might bring in counselors or law enforcement. The process isn't meant to stifle free expression, she said.

'They have the right to write whatever they want,” Caton said. 'But when the writing is threatening to another person, that's where I draw the line.”

Frank Lomonte, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Student Press Law Center, said he thinks the key is matching the response to the behavior.

'A lot of the issue around how to respond to violent speech really is about whether authorities react in a measured way or whether they immediately go to arrest and prosecution,” he said. 'It doesn't offend the First Amendment for a counselor to take you aside and have a conversation with you.”

In fact, Lomonte said, pulling someone aside and asking whether he or she needs help, or even keeping a closer watch, be a humanitarian response.

Coe College spokeswoman Rod Pritchard said the school won't comment on Souvannarath's time there from 2010 to 2014, including whether anyone there raised red flags about her work or behavior.

Authorities eventually became aware of her online posts, arresting her and Randall Steven Shepherd, 20, on Feb. 13 at a Canadian airport on suspicion of conspiracy to commit murder. Investigators said they believe Souvannarath, Shepherd, and 19-year-old James Gamble planned to kill as many people as possible in a mall on Valentine's Day.

Shepherd and Gamble, who was found dead in a Halifax house, were childhood friends who met Souvannarath online, according to media reports. All three admired the teenagers behind the 1999 shooting rampage at Columbine High School and recently blogged about plans for violence, blogs show.

‘Risk of misunderstanding'

Even though social media and online posts might have been what tipped off police in this case, Lomonte said, policing social media conversations can be dangerous.

'There's a huge risk of misunderstanding,” he said.

That, in part, is why Coe senior Angelios said she never initiated intervention. She didn't know Souvannarath personally.

'I think that's really why so many people didn't actively take initiative in this case,” Angelios said. 'Lindsay very much kept to herself, so people are hesitant to pry where they don't need to be prying. The question is, can you push authorities on someone if you don't know the full story? They could just be an introvert.”