UPDATED: 6:06 a.m., Thursday:
The Pennsbury School District issued the following comment in the wake of the preliminary injunction:
The last year has been challenging on many levels for the families and staff of the Pennsbury School District. The Board of School Directors is proud of its work during its meetings to ensure all children in the district have equal opportunity to an excellent education, and that work will continue. The district welcomes the input of its stakeholders in a productive, respectful manner as a way to achieve this goal.
We are disappointed in today’s ruling and plan to appeal the ruling. In the meantime, the school board’s public comment policies will be amended to reflect the court’s order.
Advertisements
Original Story:
A federal district judge granted a preliminary injunction Wednesday against the Pennsbury School Board, the district, and its solicitors as part of a free speech case.
U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter, who was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush in 2004, blocked the Pennsbury School Board and officials from enforcing the portion of board Policy 903 that authorized statements deemed by officials as “personally directed,” abusive,” irrelevant,” offensive,” “otherwise inappropriate,” or “personal attacks” from being enforced. The school board is also blocked from prohibiting speech, as listed in Policy 922, that officials believe is “offensive,” “inappropriate,” “intolerant,” “disruptive,” and “verbally abusive.” Additionally, the judge blocked the board’s requirement that speakers announce their exact street address.
Advertisements
Last month, Lower Makefield Township residents Tim Daly, Simon Campbell, Doug Marshall, and Robert Abrams requested the preliminary injunction after they filed a federal lawsuit alleging Pennsbury and several of their officials violated their First Amendment rights by cutting them off, not allowing their comments, and editing their statements from video recordings of board meetings.
The judge wrote the preliminary injunction was issued after hearing testimony and arguments from both sides last week. The preliminary injunction is in place until the merit of the lawsuit can be determined.
Advertisements
The opinion Pratter released with the preliminary injunction order states First Amendment protections apply to speech at school board meetings.
The judge wrote that testimony presented showed members of the public who spoke highly of officials were welcomed, but the board engaged in “viewpoint discrimination” when it stifled the speech of those who were there to criticize officials and decisions they made.
“What may be considered ‘irrelevant,’ ‘abusive,’ ‘offensive,’ ‘intolerant,’ ‘inappropriate’ or ‘otherwise inappropriate’ varies from speaker to speaker, and listener to listener,” the judge wrote.
Advertisements
Pratter noted in her opinion that the First Amendment “protects offensive speakers.”
Following news of the preliminary injunction being issued on Wednesday, Alan Gura, the vice president for litigation for the Institute for Free Speech, issued comment: “We’re thankful that the court taught Pennsbury officials what they should have known all along: the First Amendment guarantees everyone’s right to criticize the school board and its policies. Parents and other community members are free to dispute the official narrative on any topic without being shouted down by government officials. The Constitution does not tolerate the ugly scenes of censorship and repression that played out at Pennsbury school board meetings earlier this year.”
Advertisements
The school district’s spokesperson told a reporter they were reviewing the preliminary injunction with attorneys.
During closing arguments last week, attorney Del Kolde, who represented the plaintiffs through the Institute for Free Speech, played a video compilation for the judge of the speakers making comments the school board did not like and shutting them down, including the clip of solicitor Peter Amuso, of law firm Rudolph Clarke, losing his cool at speakers and telling them to stop.
Advertisements
Gary Dadamo, who was representing the district and school board, made the case to the judge that school board meetings are considered a limited public forum and the school board and its representatives could stop public comment if speakers were discussing off-topic subjects. He said issuing the injunction would open the meetings up to all types of public comment that were unrelated to the school board’s duties.
Dadamo said one of the speakers violated Policy 903 in December 2020, but he was allowed to continue speaking. He also pointed to Marshall’s controversial comments in spring that were allowed at the meeting but later edited out of the video recording.
Advertisements
Kolde told the judge the board’s actions have stifled residents from expressing their opinions.
Campbell, an outspoken former board member, testified the district’s actions at meetings, including having an increased police presence, have made him avoid speaking recently at meetings.
Marshall testified he “toned down” his comments at meetings after the board and district edited his comments out of videos.
Advertisements
Previous reporting:
- Pennsbury In Federal Court Over Enforcement Of School Board Policies
- Federal Lawsuit Accuses Pennsbury Of ‘Unlawful Censorship’
- After LevittownNow.com Report, Pennsbury Releases Unedited Meeting Videos
- Pennsbury Editing Some Public Comments Out Of Board Meeting Videos
- Breaking With Recent Meetings, Pennsbury School Board Skips Over Public Comment
Report a correction via email | Editorial standards and policies
