First Amendment Claim Over Muting of Parent's Comments at School Board Meeting Can Go Forward

More from today's long decision by Judge Eric Melgren (D. Kan.) in Schmidt v. Huff (and read this post for the analysis of a separate First Amendment claim that Schmidt also brought):

Plaintiff Carrie Schmidt is the mother of two students who attend Gardner-Edgerton High School…. In 2022, Plaintiff started to speak at [school district] meetings, reading aloud to the Board words, phrases, and descriptions contained in the District's educational curriculum and library.

On May 4, 2023, Plaintiff became a member of the District Educational Services Advisory Committee. The Committee investigates and reviews the District curriculum, instruction, and assessment topics, and it also examines the accreditation process, progress, curriculum standards, and federal programs. The Committee makes recommendations to the School Board and Superintendent Brian Huff about these matters….

At an August 2024 District school board meeting, Plaintiff was the only individual signed up to speak. Immediately after Board President Tom Reddin announced that it was time for "hearing and requests and suggestions" from the public, Defendant Gregg Chapman, a Board Member, interjected, asking Reddin if he could speak first. As Plaintiff was walking up to the microphone, Defendant Chapman started his pre-written speech. He said the following:

I assume I know what the speaker is going to talk about …. Ms. Schmidt has made all kinds of allegations about our district and board of education…. She also has a misunderstanding of library books which are for enjoyment versus instructional materials, assigned books/materials…. It is entirely disingenuous to almost single-handedly bog down a transparent system with up to fourteen years' worth of reviews and then shout from the podium that we are taking too long and not doing anything about it….

I used to believe in the power of one voice, but this process has made it clear that one voice without understanding or discernment can cause more damage to a noble cause than an individual who just wants the issue resolved and working alongside the team.

It seems like she just gets pleasure from reading books with questionable content to this audience where there are minors listening.  it just feels like she wants the shock attention that is caused by reading the out of context sexual clips to the minors and adults in the audience…. [H]ow it's being handled is costing this community valuable time, effort and unfortunately valuable people who didn't cause the issue but have been drug through the mud by this continued and disingenuous rhetoric.

Members of the public who wish to speak during the "hearing and requests and suggestions" phase of the meeting are only allowed three minutes. Plaintiff had already prepared a three-minute speech that day, but after hearing Chapman's five-minute speech, she asked if she could respond. Chapman replied, "nope, you get your minutes." Thus, Plaintiff gave her pre- prepared three-minute speech. Like her speeches at previous Board Meetings, the content contained the language used in the books available at the District's library. Half-way through her speech, Reddin interrupted Plaintiff stating, "for anybody who has kids at home watching this, please pause it for a minute while she puts on her performance." The District added 15 seconds to Plaintiff's speech time for this interruption. However, throughout the duration of Plaintiff's speech, her microphone was muted until approximately the last 20 seconds of her speech.

Afterwards, Plaintiff approached Assistant Superintendent Ben Boothe and asked to repeat her speech so that viewers watching from home could hear it. Boothe denied the request, informing Plaintiff that the volume on the District's YouTube page would be increased and that viewers could instead read her remarks through closed captions. However, the District's YouTube page did not display closed captions for the portions of Plaintiff's speech during which the microphone had been muted.

The court rejected Schmidt's claim as to Chapman's critical remarks about her:

Defendant Chapman claims he is entitled to qualified immunity because his statements at the School Board Meeting constituted protected speech under the First Amendment and did not violate any clearly established constitutional right….

Plaintiff suffered no penalties for speaking at the board meeting such as a threat of violence, jail time, or a monetary fine. Instead, she claims that when Chapman accused her of getting "pleasure from reading books with questionable content to … minors listening," she suffered slander, shame, and ridicule. If Chapman's statements only served to damage Plaintiff's reputation, then they are insufficient to establish an injury within the meaning of a First Amendment retaliation claim. As such, Chapman did not unconstitutionally retaliate against Plaintiff, and so the Court dismisses this claim against him….

But it allowed her claim over the allegedly viewpoint-based muting of the microphone to go forward:

Plaintiff claims that she was targeted by Chapman for reading parts of books contained in the District's curriculum, when others were not. Specifically, she names Erika Sheets, and other individuals associated with the activist group, Moms for Liberty, who have brought complaints before the Board without facing similar treatment. Plaintiff claims that she alone had her microphone muted during her speech, was denied the chance to repeat it after the Board restored her microphone, her speech was not closed-captioned on the Board's YouTube channel, and others were not subjected to similar targeted opposition without an opportunity to respond before giving their prepared remarks.

Moreover, Plaintiff claims that Chapman's comments and subsequent actions towards her clearly show that he was targeting her based on his opposition to her viewpoint. For example, Chapman prefaced his remarks with the assumption that he knew what Plaintiff would be talking about before characterizing her criticisms as being "entirely disingenuous," "without understanding or discernment," and "damag[ing]." Additionally, Chapman trivialized Plaintiff's concerns about the Board's book review process by accusing Plaintiff of getting "pleasure from reading books with questionable content to this audience where there are minors listening" and seeking the "shock attention that is caused by reading the out of context sexual clips to the minors and adults in the audience." Plaintiff claims that the proximity between Chapman's remarks and the subsequent silencing she experienced establishes that her opinion or perspective was the rationale for the restriction.

Taking the facts in Plaintiff's Complaint as true, the Court agrees that Chapman engaged in viewpoint discrimination against Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff was still able to speak for three minutes, her speech was rendered ineffective because it could not be heard by viewers. Plaintiff's microphone was muted, and closed captioning was unavailable on the District's YouTube page. Moreover, Chapman's remarks demonstrate that he disagreed with Plaintiff's views and, likely due to those views, he subjected Plaintiff to less favorable treatment than other speakers….

Comments

[loki13]

I just quickly looked her up because I suspect something, and of course it was true. This is the same person as the prior post (as indicated at the top of this post).

Carrie Schmidt (of Kansas) is part of the Moms for Liberty Group. They are ... well, based on my personal experience of the utter batshit insane stuff they pulled in my area, the absolute worst of the worst people.

It's a national organization that gets a few local crazies to front for them, and then proceeds to do everything in their power to disrupt and destroy the local school system. They will keep pushing until the local fronts wise up or until the school system finally has enough and does something stupid out of sheer exasperation (like here).

There is a special place in hell for these people. Because it's not actually about the school. Or about their kids (do you want to be known in high school as the child of the batshit crazy parent pulling this stuff?). It's about something that has gone terribly wrong in their own lives, and a hole inside of them that they need to fill- and a national organization ready to exploit them.

They make this country worse. I'm not commenting on the legal merits, by the way. But I hope there is a particularly warm place in hell reserved this person.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Maybe, just maybe, the public schools really are as corrupted by woke as even the friendly media make them out to be.

Maybe, just maybe, schools which don't listen to parents should be pushed and pushed until they change or self-destruct.

Maybe, just maybe, that special place in hell is better reserved for "public servants" who think they are the masters and the taxpayers should just shut up and sit down.

[bernard11]

corrupted by woke???

Depicting gay people as normal is corrupt?

Do you want them to be burned at the stake, or maybe just imprisoned?

And schools certainly should listen to parents. But listening != taking orders from. Bigots and crackpots shouldn't control the schools.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

You aren't any good at pretending to be so naive and innocent.

[Careless]

You think that's what the woman was reading here, "gay people are normal"?

I do not believe you think that, so I believe you think she is actually opposed to/reading something more serious. But you also are not admitting it, so it must be damaging to your case. Conclusion: either "woke" is correct, or it's something you think is worse.

[zztop8970]

You understand that if free speech is to mean anything, it is to allow 'the absolute worst of the worst people' to speak, yes?
So what are you on about, other than to rail against her?

[Stephen Lathrop]

I disagree that a right of free expression—whether by speech or by publication—is intended to protect the public expressions of the worst people. That is merely an unfortunate side effect, which the nation must live with to prevent the undoubted evil of government deciding what expressions are worthwhile, and what not. Preventing government censorship is a proper purpose of the 1A.

But no one should say or imply that the worst expressions are immune from being called out for their quality, or for inappropriate motives which the content of those expressions may reasonably imply.

I also think the 1A ought not be interpreted to prevent government counter-speech, so long as any speaker is afforded a right of personal privilege to reply to what a member of government may say. That right is typically afforded in the rules of public procedure used in public forums across the nation. Speakers both good and bad ought to claim its privilege to extend debate, whenever they suppose more speech is an appropriate response to bad speech attributed personally to them.

As for the tactic which gave rise to the OP, and to the Court's response, it is shameful, and deserves rebuke. One of the most important functions of a library is to make available to the public the contents of books, for private reading and review. That includes books which many may think embarrassing or offensive. No one should suppose that to read a book must entail the possibility of being called out in public for its content.

[zztop8970]

Take it up with Orwell.
There's no need to protect the right to say popular things, the right to free speech is precisely intended to protect unpopular opinion.
No one's saying she shouldn't be criticized for being an awful person, but this is a (mostly) legal blog, and this post is about the 1A, and this woman has clear 1A case in her favor. Loki doesn't dispute that, he just wants to rail against her because he doesn't like her viewpoint.

[Stephen Lathrop]

No need to be stupid on purpose. No one can tell in advance whether government may seek to censor popular ideas. If it does, that is not a lesser concern than censorship of unpopular ideas. It may be a greater concern.

To make the case extreme and obvious, Americans who acted to suppress advocacy for slavery delivered a public benefit, not a detriment. Experience of that controversy made advocacy of slavery repugnant even today, and that supplied a continuing bulwark to expressive freedom, not a detriment to it. The expressive liberties of would-be slaves got lasting improvement.

[Brett Bellmore]

You love yourself some censorship, so long as YOU get to be the censor, don't you?

[Careless]

To be fair, he's been reasonably open about his desire for censorship.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, he does claim to have had a career in newspapers, and newspaper editors tend to take the limited case of editing their own publication, and generalize it to contexts where other people have 1st amendment rights, too.

[Lee Moore]

I don't think Mr Lathrop is that kind of newspaper editor. He's more the sort who thinks that 1st amendment rights accrue only to those who have the wisdom to ascend to the lofty heights of "newspaper editor" - and even then only editors of reputable organs, of sound opinion.

Freedom of the press means freedom for the editors of the NYT, Washington Post etc. Certainly not for that grubby Murdoch fellah, and still less for you.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Lee Moore — I quite recently advocated on this forum for the 1A rights of Rupert Murdoch.

[Lee Moore]

I beg your pardon.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — To equate private editing prior to publication with government censorship is abysmally stupid. Keep it up and it will guarantee permanent inability to understand 1A protection for press freedom. Not that I expect that would bother you. You have so far made yourself an open advocate against press freedom.

[mulched]

It sounds like you know her well. Tell us what she's like in person. Did she kick your dog? Put a flaming poo bag on your front porch?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Everybody has their opinion.

Since we're sharing, I personally think that Loki is a terrible person who makes the country worse, and for whom there is a special place in hell.

[Sarcastr0]

Wow, the replies to loki.

Just this again:

Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views

Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?

Con: LOL no...no not those views

Me: So....deregulation?

Con: Haha no not those views either

Me: Which views, exactly?

Con: Oh, you know the ones

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastr0, bluntly: If it's something you shouldn't be reading aloud at a school board meeting, it's something you shouldn't be teaching to children or leaving lying about in an elementary school library.

[Sarcastr0]

Most everyone is saying she would win the case (or as loki is not opining on the merits).

But a certain set, most of whom replied to loki, got big mad at the concept that this lady could be an asshole.

So yeah...
What views?
Oh, you know the ones.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And so you're... big mad at the concept that loki could be an asshole?

OK then.

[Brett Bellmore]

Let me say something else bluntly: You're confusing this lady exposing that the school was being run by assholes, with this lady herself being an asshole. The ultimate problem here is the school deliberately exposing children to materials they KNOW their parents would object to, which is why they're trying to silence a woman who's exposing it.

So, in order to not be an 'asshole' in your opinion, she has to supinely let them continue doing it?

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s a bit assholey and performative to try to find the raciest language and read it out of context over and over. It would be like if a vegan insisted on getting up in front of the meeting every week and go on at length about the brutal parts of the process of making the sausage that is served in the school breakfasts. The vegan and this lady should have their rights respected but don’t tell me to not roll my eyes when they get up to talk and think “oh, give it a break, asshole.”

[Brett Bellmore]

It's assholey to insist on exposing the students to that racey language, and then mute the microphone when one of the parents insists on exposing what you're doing.

The difference is that most of the parents aren't vegans, so in that case the school board really wouldn't be concerned, because they'd know that they parents wouldn't actually MIND sausage being on the menu.

They're not trying to sneak the sausage through under the radar...

[Malika the Maiz]

Was it an element school library? The excerpt. says “the District library.” Maybe it’s a high school library?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore, implicit in your argument is a notion that a library should not stock expressive content which people might prefer to encounter only privately. It is an idea with a virulent seed of tyranny embedded in it.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, my argument is that a public library for children should not stock such content. Don't try to generalize your way out of exactly what's making this objectionable, the problem here is that the school is deliberately exposing children to things they know their parents would object to them being exposed to.

Which is why they're muting her, they want to keep the local electorate in the dark, so that they can keep on doing something the electorate wouldn't tolerate if they were aware of.

[Malika the Maiz]

A library for high school students?

When did you get so “safe spacey?”

[Brett Bellmore]

Minors are minors, and what minors should be exposed to is a matter for parents to have a say in. The school is trying to prevent that by keeping this woman from exposing what they've got in their library.

This is about as classic an example of government trying to block transparency in order to avoid democratic accountability as it gets.

Now, maybe, just maybe, the parents, knowing, will not object. But if that's the case, why is the school board so determined that she not be heard?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

One of my mother's pet phrases when she was upset with fools was, "Some people ought be just taken out and shot." We grew up with it and never once took her seriously, and I believe made fun of it a few times, which always made her laugh. She never would have said it in public. The one time I can tie it to any specific incident was when some officious cop wrote her a ticket for driving the wrong way because her car was parked in front of our house, off the road, but on the wrong side of the street. This was a rural area, no center line markers, no shoulder markings, no sidewalks, and probably half the cars nearby were similarly parked on the wrong side of the road.

The point is, I do not understand how so many public officials can so blithely ignore the most basic principles of free speech and fair play. The arrogance it implies is astounding, the attitude that they control everything and the public just doesn't matter. We used to joke at one startup when answering phone calls from early adopters how much better our jobs would be if it just weren't for customers. These clowns all act like it's the truth, how they wish the taxpayers would all just leave them alone.

[tuphat]

Just to be clear: It seems like they muted her microphone for purposes of the broadcast, but allowed her to speak in the actual chamber for the full three minutes. So she got to say her peace to the board, but she claims First Amendment violation for the board effectively deciding not the publish her speech on a government-run You Tube channel? That's insane.

[zztop8970]

The board can decide not to run a YouTube channel, or not to publish public hearings on its channel. But if it has a YouTube channel where it publishes public hearings, it can't discriminate based on viewpoints, and decide to publish some comments but not others. That is a clear as day 1st amendment violation. What's insane is that don't understand this basic principle.

[Bob from Ohio]

"That's insane."

Its still content based censorship.

[santamonica811]

It's *not* insane. She is (as has been noted) an awful person. But we don't give free speech only to non-assholes. I think she should likely win. Probably get a few dollars in damages. And a bucketload in legal fees. And should not be muted in the future.

Again; she is awful. So what?

[mulched]

It sounds like you know her just as well as Loki. Were you at the school board meeting? Did she put a banana in your tailpipe? Tell you a yo' mama joke?

[TwelveInchPianist]

She's awful for reading books that are available in the kids' library during a time for the public to share their concerns?

Is it awful because you think only a man should read children's books while dressed as a woman?

You guys sure love to hate.

[Malika the Maiz]

Prudes of the world unite! I think a good high school library should have books like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or Tropic of Cancer that a 17 year old might want to read but it would be inappropriate to read at a public forum.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So they can read it but no one can talk about what it says?

That is quite prudish.

[Malika the Maiz]

There’s times and places that are appropriate and others that aren’t. Just because you don’t want to read parts of Tropic of Cancer to your grandmother or to young kids doesn’t mean that a 17 year shouldn’t be able to read it. Context is an interesting thing!

What’s prudish is trying to eliminate access to every kid who might want to read it. If this lady doesn’t like the books she’s complaining of there is a sure fire solution: she should tell her kids not to check them out.

[Careless]

It's absolutely adorable that you think we're talking about Tropic of Cancer and not a book with instructions on how to sign up for Grindr as a minor

[loki13]

It is absolutely adorable that you think high schoolers are going to the high school library to read books ... on how to sign up for Grindr.

Please let us know what other exciting information you wish to share from your peers at five and dime, grandpa.

[bernard11]

In general, I agree, but Huckleberry Finn is wholly appropriate to read at a public forum or anywhere else.

It may be the best American novel ever, and the (yes, left-wing) fools who try to banish it from the schools should be ignored, if not ridiculed.

[Malika the Maiz]

I don’t think sections with the N word should be read at a school board meeting but a high school kid should be able to read the book.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Then don’t read sections with the n word at a school board meeting.

Other people might have different ideas about what should be read at a school board meeting.

[Malika the Maiz]

Racist epithets?

[Careless]

If you have a point to make about the book that needs to be or should be made by reading that part of the book, yes.

[Brett Bellmore]

I've read Huckleberry Finn, and there's nothing particularly offensive about it to people who haven't trained themselves to be all bare nerve endings.

[Malika the Maiz]

Yeah, what could possibly offend some people by repeated public pronouncements of the N word!

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not saying there aren't people who would be offended. We're at the far end of about a generation or more of incentivizing people having thin skin, such people are deplorably common.

I think it is a very bad idea to encourage people to be thin skinned and looking for excuses to be offended, and we should tell them to suck it up and grow up.

[Bob from Ohio]

loki just let his "last reasonable man" mask drop. Sad

Libs here wanting to beat a woman or send her to hell for taking some pictures and talking at a school board meeting

[TwelveInchPianist]

You don't think the "last reasonable man" mask dropped when he spent about two months pasting random insults into the reply box on people's comments?

[Lee Moore]

It seems to me that quite a few of Loki’s recent comments - at least the ones I have read - have been rather emotional in tone. I had put it down to performative display but maybe he’s just feeling antsy and needs to emote publicly to let off steam.

Anyway it seems to me that he has offered us precisely zip by way of an explanation for why he thinks the plaintiff is a terrible person, other than that she disagrees with him. Some folk just have a low threshold for rage.

[Frank Drackman]

Always love how a work available in the Screw-el Library is too obscene to read at a Screw-el Board meeting

[jay.tee]

She’s just lucky Merrick Garland isn’t in office anymore. Otherwise, she’d probably have a “social visit” from some agents. Hell, they might even shoot her dog while they’re at it.

I wish I was kidding.

[not guilty]

The basic purpose of § 1983 damages is "to compensate persons for injuries that are caused by the deprivation of constitutional rights." Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 254 (1978). Whatever the constitutional basis for § 1983 liability, such damages must always be designed "to compensate injuries caused by the constitutional deprivation." Memphis Comm. Sch. Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 309 (1986).

To that end, compensatory damages in a First Amendment case may include not only out-of-pocket loss and other monetary harms, but also such injuries as "impairment of reputation, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering." Stachura, at 307, quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 350 (1974). "[A] jury may be permitted to assess punitive damages in an action under § 1983 when the defendant's conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others. Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983).

This plaintiff's damages are likely de minimis. She doesn't appear to be out of pocket any money. She was not silenced in delivering her bloviation; her audience was merely limited to those persons who were present. That would hardly support any finding of callous or reckless indifference to First Amendment rights.

I suspect that an award of $1.00 would make this plaintiff whole.

[not guilty]

If I were representing the school board, I would make an offer of judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 68 for compensatory damages in the amount of $100.00.

This litigation is likely driven by the hope of finding a pot of attorney fees gold at the end of the rainbow. Fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) are awarded as part of the costs. If the offer of judgment that I am describing is offered and rejected, and if the judgment at trial is less favorable, Rule 68(b) would require the plaintiff to pay the costs incurred after the offer was made.

That should dampen the plaintiff's counsel's enthusiasm for the lawsuit.

[santamonica811]

That was sort of the thrust of my earlier post.

[not guilty]

The Rule 68 offer I suggested could upset the "bucketload in legal fees" apple cart.

[loki13]

That doesn't work. She isn't motivated by attorney's fees. She's a front for Moms for Liberty. This is solely about media and press coverage.

Which EV is providing.

[Lee Moore]

Ahhhh ! The penny drops.

Your temper is frayed because - obviously - this woman's views should not be heard. That was what the school board was trying to achieve by prefacing her remarks with their own abuse (with an extra two minutes for good measure), turning off her mike, failing to provide the close captioning, and so on. What she needs is - a gag.

But what has caused you to snap entirely is ... EV is giving her publicity. Unforgivable.

Wie dumm von mir.

[loki13]

No. It's that there is a national group that isn't actually interested in improving our schools. And that they find local crazies, and exploit the crazy. And turn everything in the local school system into a circus.

Which doesn't help the local school system. Instead, it makes it a terrible experience, and it worsens the educational experience for the kids the entire time. This isn't cost-free. It uses up the resources of these schools (in time and money) dealing with this. Remember- it's not about the local issues, it's about a national group pushing its issues to try and get media attention.

That bugs me, yes. Apparently, you don't care about people actively making this country worse. Good for you.

[Lee Moore]

Maybe you and they simply disagree on what would constitute improvement.

They may think your improvements are deteriorations. And vice versa.

It’s even possible that you and I disagree on what would make this country better or worse. Who’da thunk it ?

[loki13]

Maybe I am actually familiar with this group? And maybe I actually read the opinion, and then googled the person and looked at some additional news stories for context to confirm that, yes, this was a similar fact pattern to what I saw happen?

And maybe you just like to argue to score points on the internet without bothering to even inform yourself of the most basic things- you know, like what's in the OP, or in the linked-to opinion, or the background facts?

But sure, you pat yourself on the back. Because you have a true understanding of what this group is doing, how it operates, and what happens at the local level when this happens- and the effects it has on the school system.

Gosh darn, Lee Moore, I bet you're so proud of yourself that you're typing with one hand now.

[Lee Moore]

Still light on specifics.

[loki13]

I've given the specifics in other comments, and I've realized that sealions aren't worth feeding. Apparently, it can still take me a while to remember that. But I always appreciate when the lesson is hammered home, so thanks for the final reminder.

[Lee Moore]

No you haven't - at least not in this thread and I don't see why I should go hunting on other threads.

I am not inclined to accept your general handwaving conclusions just because you offer them. The odd thing is that if it were really true that you have this dame's number, and have chapter and verse on her various sins, you'd offer up an actual verse.

But all you offer is conclusory handwaving. The natural inference is that actually you've got nothing. That may be wrong, but a man who claims to be drowning in details but who won't put one up, is swimming against the tide.

[Malika the Maiz]

He’s saying it’s a shame to feed that kind of behavior. People can have the right to do all kinds of things that decent people might find it unfortunate to incentivize by giving it attention. Interestingly this used to be a common-place conservative way of thinking.

[TwelveInchPianist]

That's another unfortunate trend on the left lately, claiming that people shouldn't engage in discourse or discuss things that upsets the narrative.

Here, the claim is that EV shouldn't discuss what is a legitimate and interesting 1A issue because it might give publicity to people Loki disagrees with.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Which EV is providing."

EV is writing about the first amendment issue.

It sounds like the school board is providing the publicity, via the Streisand effect.

[loki13]

For the reading impaired (most of whom I cannot read, but I can detect the stupidity from the replies to them)-

I specifically did not comment on the MERITS of the case. Why? Well, not only because this isn't the place to discuss, um, the law (not for some time) but also because I don't need to prove my bona fides on Free Speech* to any of the people here, for whom Free Speech isn't actually a principle, but just a useful hammer to bash other people with while trying to suppress speech they don't like.

But unlike the mouthbreathers here, I actually did have personal experience with some local loonies who made the mistake of getting involved with Moms for Liberty- and they made things hellish for everyone until, thankfully, they managed to re-acquire a little sanity and told the national group to crawl back to the dank sewer they belong in. But it was a rough 18 or so months.

But yeah, this individual has been at it for several years. YEARS. Again, I do not condone what the school system did when they finally snapped. But I get it- because I've seen this happen, and I've seen what it causes, and I know that local boards aren't used to dealing with the crazies that just keep crazyin'. Over and over and over again, until eventually a single misstep results in a lawsuit. Because remember- that's what the national organization is pushing the crazies to do- keep it up, keep escalating, keep pushing. Not because this particular crazy actually cares about these issues in her school - but because the national organization keeps feeding the crazy.

That's not how it's supposed to work in this country.

*With the exception of T-Shirts, of course.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Again, I do not condone what the school system did when they finally snapped. But I get it.." because the woman had been engaging in speech that Loki disagrees with for YEARS! And did you see how short her skirt was!

"I don't need to prove my bona fides on Free Speech* to any of the people here..."

OK then.

[Swede425]

LOL!
"You can't read that filth here! This is a school board meeting!"
"So it's agreed, then. Little Timmy needs this filth in the library in order to...broaden his horizons....no, round out his education...or whatever."

[loki13]

For the intellectually stunted who don't understand the tactic, I can explain how this works from first-hand experience.

She is the parent of a high-school student. HIGH SCHOOL. That means that she spends all of her time finding any material (any material) from the library, from any coursework, from any AP literature course (which includes college texts), from any thing that might be available at any time through the school, even that is gated by permission from the parents, and she will then-

Find the worst, most salacious, most offensive material and read it, out of context, at a general school district meeting- you know, the school district meeting that is for the whole district (not just the high school, but assumedly K-12). Which will have parents of kindergarteners and, often, elementary school kids in the audience.

Each and every time. Over and over again. And, by the way- these won't even by the books from the library that she'll be challenging. She's doing that too. It could literally just be a section from an AP Lit course for seniors that requires special permission. It doesn't matter.

But thanks for the LOL.

[loki13]

By the way, this is the whole point of Moms for Liberty.

To generate media coverage so that useful tools like the person I responded too who haven't experienced this in their local community can keep telling themselves, "DERP! PUBLIC SCHOOLS R JUST FILLED WITH DA GAY SEX BOOKS AND THE KITTY LITTER 4 KIDS!!!!"

Do some good. Get off your keyboard, and get involved in a positive way in your local community. Learn how things work before you try and change it.

[Lee Moore]

And, by the way- these won't even by the books from the library that she'll be challenging. She's doing that too. It could literally just be a section from an AP Lit course for seniors that requires special permission

Then all the officials need to say is - this stuff is not in the library. Children have no access to it, without express permission from their own parents. If that's true of course.

Chapman should have spoken after the lady you dislike, and refuted her, whenever she quoted from a book that was not in the library. With the mikes on.

[loki13]

What do you think has been happening for years? Here's the response, read it again-

I assume I know what the speaker is going to talk about …. Ms. Schmidt has made all kinds of allegations about our district and board of education…. She also has a misunderstanding of library books which are for enjoyment versus instructional materials, assigned books/materials…. It is entirely disingenuous to almost single-handedly bog down a transparent system with up to fourteen years' worth of reviews and then shout from the podium that we are taking too long and not doing anything about it….

I used to believe in the power of one voice, but this process has made it clear that one voice without understanding or discernment can cause more damage to a noble cause than an individual who just wants the issue resolved and working alongside the team.

It seems like she just gets pleasure from reading books with questionable content to this audience where there are minors listening. it just feels like she wants the shock attention that is caused by reading the out of context sexual clips to the minors and adults in the audience…. [H]ow it's being handled is costing this community valuable time, effort and unfortunately valuable people who didn't cause the issue but have been drug through the mud by this continued and disingenuous rhetoric.

And as pointed out, her microphone wasn't cut off. I don't know if the fact that she was muted on the youtube feed was deliberate, or if someone just forgot to flip the switch after the colloquy, but yeah, once it was realized, they should have allowed her the three minutes.

But while it was a violation, I get the frustration. It doesn't excuse it, but after years of this, I get it.

That's the point. Keep pushing for years and years and eventually, you get a lawsuit over SOMETHING, and then useful allies liker EV will publicize it, and useful tools like Swede can be like, "LOOK AT THE LIBRULZ! INDOCTRINATING THE KIDDY LITTER KIDZ!"

I don't know this school board in Kansas. But if it's like the one I dealt with locally, they aren't liberals. They are just local community members trying to do the right thing by the children and dealing with someone ... who isn't.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What do you think has been happening for years? "

She's been disagreeing with the school board?

[Dan Schiavetta]

loki13,

As someone who like you started with Volokh.com:

Don't waste your time here. It just will get you aggravated and possibly snap at your wife or kids for no reason. That's why I stopped commenting here or contributing. It's a cesspool now.

Dan Schiavetta (a.k.a captcrisis)

[loki13]

Hey! Good to see you (albeit breifly).

Yeah, I feel you. I take frequent, and usually VERY LONG breaks. For exactly that reason.

The breakdown here is kind of like what we're seeing everywhere else. I do find it somewhat useful to pop in- because I deliberately avoid social media in all forms, sometimes I forget just how stupid, angry, and misguided so many people are. VC is a helpful reminded.

But it's about time for another hiatus. Hope you're doing well.

[wvattorney13]

I don't think there is enough information here to take sides. Some things that are puzzling is the complaint about library materials vs. instructional materials. Objectionable content shouldn't be in either.

"Out of context sexual clips"? What context could better illuminate the meaning of these clips that apparently are not fit to be read at a school board meeting?

It seems that if this lady is a kook, the board could easily release a statement about why she is off base and how these books are not in the library or visible to the children. If they ARE in the library, then they should remove them or put out a policy of why they are staying.

Either way, you give the lady her three minutes and move on. Three minutes isn't obstructing anything.

[Malika the Maiz]

You don’t think there should be anything that’s objectionable in a high school library? It should be a safe space?

Instructional is one thing, it’s aimed at entire classes and required. But books in a library are often for anyone who is curious to read them, you taking offense because I or my kid might read them and wanting to prevent that from happening is weird prudery.

[Brett Bellmore]

There should not be anything in a high school library, for students who are minors, that is objectionable enough that you could not read it verbatim at a school board meeting.

That's a judgement call, sure, and people can disagree about that. The school board is trying to silence her because they're concerned that too many parents would AGREE with her.

They're trying to sneak something under the radar, and are mad that she's frustrating that attempt.

[Lee Moore]

I read the “response” first time up. It’s not a response, obviously, as it was delivered before the complaint in question.

But as I’m sure you appreciate as a lawyer even if it were a “response” it would be worthless. It’s just generalised handwaving, with zero specifics.

An actual response would be - “the lady read a passage from “Anal Sex for Pre Teens”by Anita Polopony. That book is not on the Districts book list and never has been. Nor has it ever been kept in any school library in the district. So the lady’s point is irrelevant and has nothing to do with this District.”

With that it would make sense to keep the mikes on and let YouTube hear her. For then she would have egg on her face.

As it is she doesn’t, no matter how often you accuse her of being a horrible person deserving hellfire. With generalised handwaving and no specifics.

[loki13]

As was pointed out, and is easily found out, this wasn't the first time. Or the second time. Or the third time. Or the fourth time.

This has been going on for years. And it's not even the proper forum. She has also been filing (correctly) the forms to remove books. This is just her using PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD to read stuff. Again- it's not directed TO ANYTHING, it's a public comment period.

The point with this (and the posting of images to social media, and all of it) is to get the school board to eventually get fed up and make a mistake.

And after years, they did. And again, they didn't cut off her mic. They forgot to restore the youtube sound. And the mistake they made (after YEARS OF THIS) was not letting her re-read THE SAME THING SHE JUST READ TO EVERYONE IN ACTUAL ATTENDANCE so it would be re-conveyed on youtube.

Was it incorrect? Yes. I've already stated that. But my god, have you ever dealt with local boards? They don't do everything right. Eventually, they will screw up. And that's the point. They get the screw up after years of this, and then useful tools like you get to crow about how some poor souls who are literally just trying to get the public schools to work in Kansas are screwing people over.

Great job.

[Lee Moore]

They forgot to restore the youtube sound. And the mistake they made...

Good one. Though hardly a reinforcement for your credibility.

Again, it's all conclusions, no actual evidence.

And even assuming you had some actual specifics :

This is just her using PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD to read stuff. Again- it's not directed TO ANYTHING, it's a public comment period

what is your complaint here ? Why should her public comments in her duly booked slot during public comment period be restricted to comments you approve of ? Or the school board approves of ?

You don't like her comments ? Stop whining and suck it up.

[wvattorney13]

It is clear what her public comment is:

"The following passage is contained in a book in our school library. [Reads passage.] This is unacceptable. We demand that you remove this book."

It doesn't get more public comment like than that.

[Lee Moore]

I suspect that her real object is not to tell the officials that she thinks they should remove the books that offend her - which I'm sure they know already - but to tell the other parents, and the registered voters, that this is the sort of stuff that the officials have arranged to expose their children to. And that's the reason it's a "public" comment period. She can make as many private comments to the officials as she wishes, and they can drop her comments directly into the round file, with no one else in the world aware of the fact that there has been a complaint or what it is.

No doubt the officials find it tiresome to have to listen to her for three minutes every few months, but that's not why they arranged that her remarks could not be heard, or indeed read, on their Youtube feed. It's because they did not want other parents, and registered voters, to be able to hear what she had to say. Because they fear, not without justification, that this audience might be on her side not theirs.

Accountability really sucks.

[Lee Moore]

loki : And again, they didn't cut off her mic

The judge thinks different :

However, throughout the duration of Plaintiff's speech, her microphone was muted until approximately the last 20 seconds of her speech.

Plaintiff's microphone was muted, and closed captioning was unavailable on the District's YouTube page.

[Swede425]

Are you claiming the quotes she reads are from books that aren't in the library in question?
How do you know that?
That would seem pretty easy to refute then, if you were a school board member. But they didn't.
I don't care if she's like you, a cat mom.
Finding and exposing the hypocrisy of these school boards should be every parent's job. The fact that you don't like it bothers me not at all.

[Malika the Maiz]

Who cares if they are in a high school library? It’s fascinating to see wannabe tuff guys like the Swedish Meatball be all like “fuck your feelings” and “but what if a 17 year old reads the naughty bits from Tropic of Cancer, won’t somebody think of the children” at the same time.

It’s borderline autistic to think that if you shouldn’t read it at an all ages formal forum then it shouldn’t be in a high school library. Different venues and groups have different norms, most learn that as kids, how do you people navigate life socially? Cat mom’s indeed.

[Swede425]

Still championing deviancy for children, I see.
If anybody is wondering and/or suspecting about this guy/girl/thing, you can stop.
It's true.
Wouldn't surprise anybody to find him on a list that warns parents where the weirdos live, if you know what I mean.

[Lee Moore]

I should say - as I am not the world's leading puffer of the wisdom and even-handedness of those selected for judicial robes - that the judge in this case seemed admirably coherent and fair.

[Malika the Maiz]

Here’s a passage from Tropic of Cancer::

“O Tania, where now is that warm cunt of yours, those fat, heavy garters, those soft, bulging thighs? There is a bone in my prick six inches long. I will ream out every wrinkle in your cunt, Tania, big with seed. I will send you home to your Sylvester with an ache in your belly and your womb turned inside out.”

It seems to me two very sensible things can be said about this and like passages:

1. If a 17 year old were to read it it’s not going to melt their brain or cause them trauma or lead them to a life of hopeless debauchery. Heck, it’s probably boringly tame to most 17 year olds. So it’s fine for it to be available in a library for 17 year olds.

2. It would be inappropriate to read this at a formal ages event.

The idea that 2 means 1 is wrong is silly, it confuses the context of the venue, audience, purpose, etc., in almost laughable ways.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Dude, WTF?!?

You know children can read this, right!

[Malika the Maiz]

I assume you have your mom’s permission and consent to be here.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No, but your mom keeps reading that passage to me over and over.

[Malika the Maiz]

All ages btw

[TwelveInchPianist]

I'll note that you're engaging in the same tactic that the woman is. You're posting the content here verbatim to show how inappropriate it would be for a school board meeting.

I don't really care if that passage is in a high school library, or for that matter read aloud at a school board, but I get that some people don't agree that the government should subsidize access to that sort of material for children, and I don't see how reading the material at a school board meeting is beyond the pale as a form of protest, it seems perfect legitimate.

Many of the commenters decrying the mom's actions here are the same ones who defend civil disobedience (you know, actual lawbreaking) by saying that protests are supposed to make you uncomfortable. Well, there you go.

[wvattorney13]

It is certainly at least debatable whether the material you quoted should be kept in a school library for minors. The people who decide that, the parents, should be permitted to be informed of the content of this material so they can make up their own minds and petition the board accordingly.

The cheap trick the government cannot employ is to put plausibly objectionable content in the library and then when it is time for the comment period, to invite sensitive listeners so that it can then claim, "You can't talk about the material in the school library! There are decent women and children here!"

The government cannot insulate itself from criticism in that manner.