from the two-guilty,-no-right dept
There are no winners here. There are only different levels of losses. The government supports most. As it should be. If there is a need for an adult in the room, the government is responsible for it, no matter how annoying the child is.
It means that the most childish people will not learn anything from this experience. But we expect our fellow Americans to be irrational freaks with idiosyncratic views on every social issue. What we should expect – more unusual – is that the government carries its weight for people who are more stupid than dangerous.
But the government failed here. And, because of that, people full of irrational hatred get empty net goals. I will try to summarize where I can, but there is a LOT going on here.
Angela Reading, a resident of North Hanover, New Jersey and a member of the local school board, walked into her daughter’s school and was immediately outraged by all the inclusiveness she witnessed. From the decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals [PDF]:
The controversy that led to this case opened at the Upper Elementary School (UES or School) in the North Hanover Township School District. As part of the “Week of Respect” 2022, the School invites students to design a “demonstration” poster.[ing] that UES [is] a safe place where everyone is [is] accepted.” Some students offer a “generally accepted message,” while others support more specific causes.
One of the posters, which is centered with the acronyms “LGBTQ” and “UES,” features descriptions of various sexual identities and corresponding flags. These posters include “bi” flags, “genderfluid” flags, and “polysexual” flags, among others. It proclaims that “being different is cool” and instructs students that “you are who you are.”
Angela Reading first saw the poster when she attended the School’s “Math Night”. After her seven-year-old daughter asked her what the word “polysexual” meant, she became “sad”.
Now, I assume that “livid,” in this context, means unable or unwilling to open a dictionary or do endless googling. Such a definition may be given without disturbing anyone’s (normal) sensibility. It’s definitely not graphic, although it’s a slightly more complex concept than you’d expect a seven-year-old to absorb right away. Instead of just ending this conversation, Reading went on Facebook, which was the trend at the time.
They took their concerns to social media. In a lengthy post to the “NJ Fresh Faced Schools” Facebook page, Reading wondered why elementary schools allow students to “explore the topic of sexuality,” and worried that adults “talk about sex life” with their children. He called the poster “perverse” and said it was “definitely illegal to expose my children to sexual content.”
Narrator: the poster does not contain sexual content.
Although”[k]Id have to respect the difference,” Reading explained, he “shouldn’t be forced to learn and accept the concept of sexuality in elementary school.” Reading concluded the post by noting that his comments were “made in [her] capacity as a private citizen and not in [her] capacity as a [school] board members.”
This non-binding statement means nothing, just like most of the legalistic-sounding statements copied and pasted on the internet. It is made in two capacities because [dun dun DUNNN] he is also a member of the school board.
All of this is stupid and wrong and wouldn’t be a Techdirt post if it weren’t for the government’s response, which includes a group of government employees who are concerned citizens.[!] while using their powers to retaliate against statements they disagree with.
The main problem here is that Reading’s daughter goes to school with an Army kid. (More precisely, they are the children of the “flaps,” a term referring to members of the Air Force I didn’t know until I spent a decade living outside of Ellsworth Air Force Base.)
Back to the story. Weird shit started happening. A group of military officers who were schoolboys with Reading children did not enter the post and began to show. All well and good. Then they started doing things like this, apparently just because they had abilities to do so.
Controversy grew when [Major Chris] Schilling raised his concerns to leaders at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst. Now writing from a military email account, Schilling warned Major Nathaniel Lesher that Reading’s post could “give[] a road map for anyone who wants to make a statement, political, ideological, or even violent. In response, Major Lesher promised to forward the matter to Robert Duff, Hanover Township Police Chief. After Reading’s post gained traction online, Schilling once again contacted Lesher, who vowed to “push this one more time” to Duff.
Instead of de-escalating matters for the Hanover Township Police, the situation intensified when other military personnel got involved. Air Force Anti-Terrorism Program Manager Joseph Vazquez wrote that Reading’s post “really got under my skin.” He assured Major Schilling that he “sent this to our partners with the NJ Office of Security and Preparedness and the NJ State Police Regional Operations Intelligence Center,” who “monitor right-wing/hate groups.” And Lt. Col. Megan Hall advised two local school superintendents, including Defendant Helen Payne, that Reading’s post “has raised concerns for the safety of our military children and families.” He is concerned that he “could become a target of extremist personnel/groups.”
Yes, Reading’s post deserves criticism. And yes, people should question his position on the school board. But “extremist?” This is just suburban Karen shit being thrown onto social media because at least one immediate member of the poster’s family will feel compelled to add a supportive emoji or two. Yes, it is meant to stir up people who barely know the impulses of their own loins, but it is hardly a matter of national security.
And yet, it became a matter of national security, but for a moment. The police chief inserted himself into the online discussion and convinced the owner of the Facebook page to remove Reading’s comments. They did so by insinuating that the post and the owner of the page were “under investigation” by the Department of Homeland Security. Head Duff also (unbelievably) claimed that he had to expel officials to the Hanover school because of the “threat” posed by this idiotic post that treated Reading as an irrational person.
Surely this couldn’t be more stupid, one might think. It is not.
The controversy did not end there. One comment on Reading’s post indicated the “location” of the upcoming school board meeting, which was held at a “time . . . publicly listed on the school’s website.” Become although Reading’s post has been removedMajor Schilling fears that outsiders may still endanger the community. Concern for “military parents [who] attend these meetings,” Schilling sought more support from grassroots leaders. Become Anti-terrorism Program Manager Vazquez forwarded Schilling’s concerns to the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness, who in turn notified the Counter-Terrorism Coordinator of the Burlington County Prosecutor’s Office. Meanwhile, Chief Duff offered to “continue to monitor social media and take appropriate action if necessary.”
Jesus Christ is Homosexual. I’m also concerned about domestic terrorism in the form of white people with a lot of bad ideas and free time, but this isn’t it. Here’s another one: people who are very uncomfortable with the idea of receiving and accessing their Facebook account. There are millions of them. Let’s go.
On top of the ongoing hassles at Homeland Security posts, various government employees and officials are exchanging text messages criticizing Reading (which is actually OK in some cases) and trying to determine the new government’s pain levels.
Reading sued, as he always should. And, after several rounds in the lower court, this has ended in the lap of the Third Circuit. The Court of Appeal said two things. The first one is, which doesn’t seem right: There is no need for an order because the officials and government employees who followed him for months have since moved on to other things.
Although the Defendants were involved in a conspiracy to take away Read’s First Amendment right to free speech during the last week of 2022, any threat “had greatly diminished” by the time they sued in March 2023.
Given this small gap in time, “adequate subsidy” can be more closely related to his lawsuit (or before the threat to sue), instead of disinterest constantly accused in the rudeness with him more.
The only support for the appeal court’s claim appears to be the statements made by the torturers under the command of the Reading government.
[H]before law enforcement Defendant confirmed that he was not monitoring Reading and had no plans to do so. The record backs him up on that score. While Reading continued to write blog posts about the appropriateness of “LGBTQ+ issues in public schools,” the defendants did nothing more to silence or retaliate against him.
Perhaps. Maybe not. I guess everyone will just have to wait and see.
However, this conglomerate of officials who think there is no need to improve the situation rather than simply ignore it (or give a counter speech) are still on the hook for compensation. Perhaps. They cannot continue to demand in the hope of getting anything in shape season relief. But he still has a (slim) shot at getting compensation for past harassment.
Reading’s allegations are serious and raise important questions under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Reading expressed concern about whether her seven-year-old daughter was being exposed to inappropriate sexual topics at primary school. Regardless of whether one agrees with Reading’s concerns, the record shows that Defendants’ response to her blog post was, quite simply, disproportionate. Although such past conduct may have resulted in compensatory damages or declaratory relief, this narrow appeal concerned only Reading’s standing to seek a preliminary injunction. And with Reading showing no signs of injury in the future, they cannot stand to seek that relief.
Look, I don’t like Reading’s opinion. But the best response is a strong rebuttal or a heavy sigh in recognition of social media’s ability to amplify even the most ignorant opinions. What we should not be doing is using military power and connections to try to treat idiots as a real threat to public safety. Everyone involved should know better. But in the absence of an order, it is hard to believe that this folly will not be repeated after the damage part of the judgment is over.
Filed under: 1st amendment 3rd circuit censorship free speech hanover new jersey retaliation
