Silenced and intimidated

When a New Jersey mom attended a math night at an elementary school with her 6- and 7-year-old daughters in 2022, she didn’t expect to run into student-made posters that mentioned “polysexuality,” “genderqueer,” and “pansexuality.” After one of Angela Reading’s kids spotted the signs, she asked her mom what polysexual meant.

Reading later said she was “livid” to see the signs where young children like hers could see them. At the time, she was vice president of the Northern Burlington County Regional School District Board of Education, which includes the North Hanover area. When she expressed her concerns to officials at the Northern Burlington County school, she said they were dismissive toward her. So, the mom voiced her concerns on Facebook.

But that post sparked a spiral of reactions and pushback. Reading filed a lawsuit claiming intimidation from local police, conspiracy from military officials, and even harassment from airport security.

Now, nearly three years after Reading sued, she’s received a few wins in her case. A U.S. District Court found last week that several of Reading’s First Amendment claims against the North Hanover Township’s police chief, a Homeland Security staff member, and a Transportation Security Administration senior official can move forward.

Reading’s Facebook post was basic First Amendment–protected speech, even if it incited angry responses, said Chris Ferrara, an attorney for Thomas More Society, which represents Reading. “They went bananas over a Facebook post,” he said. “They’re enraged that anyone could dare to question the official ideology of the public school system.”

Reading and her husband both resigned from their roles on the school board due to pushback over her post and sought alternative education for their children, according to her lawsuit.

Reading published her Facebook post in a New Jersey parents’ group in November 2022, questioning why schools allowed students to research and create posters on sexuality. “It’s perverse and should be illegal to expose my kids to sexual content,” she wrote, noting the topic was not part of the approved curriculum. “Kids should respect and understand there are various family structures. However, kids should not be forced to learn about and accept concepts of sexuality in elementary school.”

But when Maj. Christopher Schilling of the neighboring Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst saw her post, he took it upon himself to get her censored for her views, Ferrara said. Schilling, who was part of a local No Place for Hate parents committee, had never previously met or talked with Reading.

The Army major sent multiple emails to parents, from both his personal and military email accounts, that contended her post stirred up “right-wing extremists,” according to the complaint. He emailed several military personnel, urging that Reading’s post endangered the community by bringing terroristic threats, the complaint said. Another military personnel alleged Reading’s post could provoke a school shooting.

Schilling also contacted North Hanover Police Chief Robert Duff, asking him to get the post taken down over safety concerns. Duff allegedly pressured the administrator of the Facebook group Reading posted in to take down her post, according to the lawsuit. The administrator removed the post eight days after Reading published it.

Schilling wrote on his personal Facebook account that there were “security concerns” with Reading’s post, the complaint said. He added that the area’s joint base was working with local law enforcement to “monitor the situation” and “ensure the continued safety of the entire community.”

His post implied that the military was officially investigating Reading, even though there was no formal probe, the lawsuit said.

Schilling’s post caught the attention of Fox News, which invited Reading to appear on Tucker Carlson Tonight in December 2022. She told Carlson that she was scared when she saw Schilling’s Facebook post.

“I actually pulled my kids from school the day I found out,” Reading said. “I was worried for them when the U.S. military comes after you for simply raising concern about a public poster that is widely available for all to see.”

At a school board meeting shortly after this, military personnel allegedly “whipped [attendees] into a frenzy” against Reading, the lawsuit contends. They suggested that extremists supporting Reading might target the meeting.

Police lined the walls of the meeting and searched every bag that came in, according to Ferrara. “The whole thing was just completely over the top,” he said.

Reading filed her initial lawsuit in a U.S. District Court against the police chief, North Hanover’s school superintendent, and seven military officials, including Schilling, in March 2023. She contended these officials engaged in government censorship and chilled her speech.

Reading claims that, since her initial lawsuit, other governmental organizations targeted her because of Schilling’s campaign. She said the TSA and DHS have repeatedly required her to undergo unusual security checks when she flies. Ferrara said it seems someone in the military flagged her identity to these organizations, causing the excessive security checks.

According to the lawsuit, Reading has had “extreme anxiety due to fear for the safety of herself and her family” due to the response to her post. Additionally, a major local law firm rescinded a job offer to Reading because of the negative press she received.

In a court filing, Schilling argued to dismiss Reading’s suit. He said she didn’t have a single factual allegation that proved he knew or should have known his statements against her were false. Duff argued to throw out the case because, he said, he had a right to view her post as dangerous.

The District Court denied her request for a temporary ruling against the defendants in 2023, and the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling in 2024. The appeals court said there wasn’t enough evidence for a preliminary injunction, as it seemed unlikely the defendants would censor Reading’s speech again. But the court noted that “much of the government actors’ behavior was beyond the pale.”

Last week’s District Court ruling determined which of Reading’s claims can move forward. The case will now go into discovery, where attorneys will obtain additional documents and testimony, and then the case heads to trial, Ferrara said.

The District Court found it plausible that multiple military officials conspired with the police chief to silence Reading’s speech. The numerous emails between officials back up Reading’s claims of coercive intimidation, the court found.

But the court also said that military officials can’t be sued for damages based on conspiratorial actions. According to its ruling, laws don’t clearly define this type of conspiracy, and the officials are protected by qualified immunity. Ferrara said Reading will appeal this part of the ruling.

WORLD reached out to attorneys for Duff and Schilling for comment regarding the recent ruling. Duff’s attorney declined to comment, and Schilling’s did not respond prior to publication.

Ferrara said Reading’s rights have always been straightforward in this case. If her post had called for violence, then it could potentially be censored. But it didn’t—it just expressed an opinion, he said.

He added that Reading’s case reflects how governments and schools across the country are working to push sexual ideology, like polysexuality, onto kids. For instance, in California, teachers and educators are fighting back against secretive gender transition policies at schools in a class-action lawsuit.

“[Schools] want the right to corrupt your children,” Ferrara said. “And they want to make it illegal for you to object to the corruption of your children.”