This story is already problematic from a First Amendment perspective. But it could have ramifications even beyond what is happening to the kids in question.

According to the Hampden County District Attorney's Office, the six school kids made the remarks in a private group chat on Snapchat and expressed "expressed hateful and racist comments, including notions of violence toward people of color, racial slurs, derogatory pictures and videos, and a mock slave auction directed at two juveniles known to them."

District Attorney Anthony Gulluni said at a press briefing on Thursday:

There is no question that the alleged behavior in this case of these six juveniles is vile, cruel and contemptible. Seeing it, and facing the reality that these thoughts, that this ugliness can exist within middle school students here in this community in 2024 is discouraging, unsettling and deeply frustrating.

With this I intend to be very clear: Hatred and racism have no place in this community, and where this behavior becomes criminal, I will ensure that we act -- and act with swift resolve, as we did here -- to uncover it and bring it to the light of justice.

Although the specifically offensive remarks have not been publicly released, it is understood the conversation centered around a slave auction involving other students. The students all live around Southwick, a suburb of Springfield in Massachusetts.

The students are facing charges for “threat to commit a crime” and two others are being charged with “interference with civil rights” and “witness interference.”

If these children were engaged in a racist conversation and talking about selling black students in a slave auction, it should be condemned. Most would find this line of discussion to be abhorrent. But, unless there were actual threats made, the notion that it warrants criminal charges is absurd and starts us down a scary slippery slope.

For starters, what business do schools or other government agencies have with involving themselves in private conversations? The discussions did not happen in a school setting nor were they reported to have harassed other students. This is an issue for parents, not the state.

It is also worth mentioning that while we do not know the precise nature of the racist remarks that were allegedly made, the definitions of bigotry have become quite malleable. We can thank the hard left for this. Progressives tend to refer to any argument, belief, or opinion that contradicts their own as bigoted, which leads to the next issue: Who decides what type of bigoted speech should warrant the attention of law enforcement?

Nowadays, one can get called racist simply for arguing in favor of stricter security at the southern border. Espousing this point of view magically transforms people into racists and xenophobes who don’t want to see any more brown people in the United States. What if one could face charges for making comments about illegal immigrants?

Moreover, if this type of response becomes more widespread, it will inevitably create a culture of self-censorship among children and even adults. If one has to worry about law enforcement showing up at their door because they had a forbidden conversation on Snapchat, they will be more hesitant to express their views – especially if they are concerned that they could be ratted out to the state.

This culture of censorship will not abate when these kids become adults. Having been trained to fear expressing views that might be controversial, they will likely keep their mouths shut when they enter the real world – especially if the anti-speech crowd manages to find a way around the First Amendment and begin punishing those who do not share “acceptable” opinions on certain matters. As time goes on, the chilling effect on free speech would be profound and far-reaching.

Of course, this is precisely the world in which the authoritarian left wants us all to live – in unwavering obedience to progressive orthodoxy.

This case, while localized in nature, should not be ignored. If these children are convicted of crimes related to expressing backward views, it could lead to more stories similar to this one. Eventually, it could result in the state having yet another way to silence people.