Mom’s free speech appeal over LGBTQ poster outcry lands at Third Circuit

PHILADELPHIA (CN) — A Third Circuit panel appeared unlikely to grant a South Jersey mother’s appeal for a preliminary injunction Wednesday against town leaders she says conspired to delete a personal Facebook post in which she complained about gay pride posters at her daughter’s school.

Angela Reading, a mother of two and former school board member, filed a First Amendment suit in March 2023 claiming continued government censorship and requesting a court order to prevent the deletion of future posts. She names North Hanover Police Chief Robert Duff, North Hanover school Superintendent Helen Payne and eight Air Force officials at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst as defendants.

Christopher Ferrara, a Fairfield, New Jersey, lawyer with the conservative Roman Catholic public interest firm Thomas More Society, argued on Reading’s behalf Wednesday.

“This case began with a single Facebook post by Mrs. Reading on a matter of public concern — that being the exposure of elementary school children to age-inappropriate material and so-called gender identities,” Ferrara said, arguing that the public outrage that followed was created by the defendants.

He said his client has limited her posting on Facebook in the last two years as a result.

U.S. Circuit Judge Kent Jordan, a George W. Bush appointee, questioned the need for an injunction Wednesday, asking why Reading would need a preliminary injunction if the defendants were not actively censoring her speech.

“Let’s go with the district court’s assertion that nothing has happened in nearly two years. That your client has spoken out — and spoken out indeed on controversial matters, including things going on in the schools, and about this issue, about the fallout from this issue — and nobody has done anything to stop her,” Jordan said. “So the assertion of a chill shouldn't be taken at face value, and any censorship going on now is entirely self-imposed.” 

Reading's attorney pushed back.

“Any person of ordinary firms would be deterred from speaking again and speaking again on the same subject matter if that person was, first of all, having her speech censored under coercion by a local police chief, at the behest of military officials,” Ferrara said. 

Reading says that she and her 7-year-old daughter saw gay pride posters made by students at an elementary school math night event on Nov. 22, 2022, and after the event, her child asked her about “polysexuality.” 

The student-made posters, containing phrases such as “Don’t be ashamed of who you are,” displayed terms such as “polysexual,” “genderfluid,” “bi,” “LGBT Pride,” “pansexual” and “genderqueer,” as well as the flags associated with different gender identities.

Reading posted an image of one of the posters in two local Facebook groups, asking how children in fourth, fifth and sixth grades could spell such words and draw the flags without help from teachers.

“It's perverse and should be illegal to expose my kids to sexual content,” she wrote in her post, adding that “kids should not be forced to learn about and accept concepts of sexuality in elementary schools.”

Duff, the local police chief, contacted one of the Facebook group’s administrators to delete Reading’s post. The defendant community leaders argued Wednesday this was protected “free speech” on his part. They maintain that Reading’s words jeopardized the public safety of local children. 

The administrator of public Facebook group “NJ Fresh Faced Schools” took Reading’s post down at the police chief’s request. The other Facebook group, “Northern Burlington,” was private and had 129 members.

U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman, a fellow George W. Bush appointee, also questioned Reading’s need for an injunction.

“It was one act in time caused your client harm,” he told Ferrara. “I think it's a little strange to suggest that by Duff doing that act a couple of years ago, that Duff is continuing to do something. It's just the ongoing effect of what Duff did,” Hardiman said.

Jordan agreed. 

“They say they haven’t done anything in two years and you’re not saying any different,” Jordan added.

Graham White, an attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice for the federal defendants, told the panel that any fear of retribution on Reading’s part for future posts is hypothetical.

“It's entirely speculative that if she were to rejoin this Facebook group and make similar posts about this, that the federal defendants, or any of the defendants in this case, would take any action,” White said.

After Reading’s original post went viral, the school district’s superintendent, also named as a defendant, sent a letter to the community explaining that the posters were part of a voluntary Week of Respect activity.

Reading also names several officials from a military base close to the township in her suit. More than half of the children in North Hanover School District have parents who are active-duty military members, and base officials became involved in the dispute. 

Reading says Army Major Christopher Schilling falsely tagged her as an “extremist” and sent an email to local authorities saying that the post could provoke a school shooting if seen by members of far-right hate groups.

“This gives a road map to anyone looking to make a statement, political, ideological or even violent,” Schilling wrote in an email to another base employee, over his concern that the public post contained the location and name of the school.

Reading says this action encouraged the police chief, working with Homeland Security officials, to have the post removed on Nov. 30, 2022, eight days after it had been posted.

A New Jersey federal court dismissed Reading’s complaint in November 2023, prompting her appeal to the Third Circuit.

As a result of the controversial post, Reading says she was forced to resign from her elected position as vice president of the Northern Burlington County Regional School Board on Dec. 7, 2022.

U.S. Circuit Judge David Porter, a Donald Trump appointee, rounded out the panel Wednesday.

Reading was one of five social media user plaintiffs the Supreme Court ruled against 6-3 in June 2024, finding that the Biden administration could continue communicating with social media companies, allowing the government to share information with platforms about potentially dangerous posts. 

Follow @@lexandrajones

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit