POTSDAM, N.Y. – School shootings are serious business, and school officials are correct to take full precautions whenever they believe there may be a threat.

But law enforcement authorities still have a responsibility to differentiate between threats and opinions, and to honor citizens’ First Amendment rights, regardless of how deplorable their statements might be.

A meeting between the parents of a student and Lawrence Avenue Elementary Principal Larry Jenne this week resulted in a school lockdown, after Toby LaBier, the boyfriend of the mother of the student, expressed disgust with school policies and allegedly said, “You wonder why people come into school and shoot things up.”

MORE NEWS: Know These Before Moving From Cyprus To The UK

What an idiotic and insensitive statement to make.

After conferring with the district superintendent, Jenne contacted the police and was told that authorities were trying to locate LaBier, according to Ogd.com. At that point the principal decided to implement a school lockdown, and other buildings in the district followed suit.

The lockdown lasted about 45 minutes, until police told school authorities that LaBier had been arrested and charged with one count of “first degree criminal nuisance.”

“I spoke with Brittany Lazano (the mother of the student) after (LaBier) left and she apologized for his comment and said he would ‘never do anything,’” Jenne was quoted as saying. “I remained uneasy, not knowing Mr. LaBier or having any idea what he is or isn’t capable of.”

Jenne did the right thing under the circumstances. After so many tragic shooting incidents in recent months and years, particularly at Sandy Hook Elementary last December, school administrators can’t be too cautious.

But the obvious question remains – why was LaBier arrested? He expressed an opinion, albeit a stupid and inappropriate one. He did not make any threats.

Under the U.S. Constitution, people are allowed to have and express opinions, even if they say they approve of school shootings. That’s their absolute right.

MORE NEWS: How to prepare for face-to-face classes

And what kind of a law is “criminal nuisance” when applied to spoken (or even written) statements?  It sounds like a handy little law designed to allow law enforcement to stomp all over First Amendment rights.

If complaining to government officials (which school principals most certainly are) can be defined as a nuisance, our freedoms are in serious jeopardy. A taxpayer could express angry frustration at his city’s mayor over his tax bill and be arrested and charged with creating a nuisance.

Any decent lawyer should have a very easy time getting the charges against LaBier dismissed. It may not even require a lawyer. We wouldn’t be surprised if authorities drop the charges today, fully understanding how ridiculous they are.

But if that’s the case, that means they were using this bogus law to intimidate and punish a citizen for exercising his First Amendment rights. That’s pretty scary, too.

Opinions must be respected, not censored

This case brings to mind the recent arrest of Baltimore citizen Robert Small, who became angry and spoke out of turn at a local meeting about the new national Common Core academic standards.

The police said he was arrested for shoving the security guard at the meeting who was an off-duty police officer. But video proved that nothing of the kind occurred. And sure enough, the charges against the father were dropped the next day.

He was basically arrested for speaking his mind. It was the government’s way of telling him to keep his opinions to himself at government meetings.

Equally disturbing was a situation that has come to light at Canyon High School in Anaheim Hills, California, where a female student said she was forced to change out of a t-shirt with a logo promoting the National Rifle Association.

School administrators said she was forced to change “for violating the school’s dress code that forbids offensive, violent or divisive clothing.”

In this case school officials were not reacting to any perceived threat. They were enforcing their own political opinions, and completely violating the student’s right to free expression.

The NRA promotes the rights of gun owners who legally possess weapons. Legally possessing a weapon cannot be considered a violent act.

As far as “offensive” clothing goes, who’s to say what that means? Offensive is in the eyes of the beholder. Lots of teachers around the nation wore clothing promoting the Obama-Biden ticket during last year’s election cycle, and there were certainly some Republicans in the school who were offended. Were the teachers forced to change?

In the case of “divisive” clothing, what about when teachers wear protest shirts to school during nasty contract negotiations with school boards? The people who disagree with the teachers union would surely find those shirts divisive. But we’ve never heard of any school administrator forcing them to change.

Too many educators have come to believe that free expression is only allowed when it’s a liberal, politically correct expression. That’s absolute nonsense.

We Americans tend to take our constitutional rights for granted, and we rarely raise a voice when people are arrested or harassed for speaking or writing unpopular things.

But our rights are only safe if government officials – including school administrators and police – respect them. And they only have value if they apply to all citizens, even the most disgusting among us.

If we allow law enforcement to punish people like LaBier or Small for speaking out, or allow school officials to censor opinions they don’t agree with, we are only a few steps away from living in a police state.