Liberal teachers are refusing to listen to parents and are moving forward with their plans to teach Critical Race Theory. So parents have been showing up at School Board Meetings letting schools know that they don’t want their kids taught the racially divisive theory. But now one school in Pennsylvania is claiming parents don’t have a right to freely express themselves. So four parents are suing Bucks County’s Pennsbury School District and trying to set a precedent ensuring parents across the nation maintain their free speech in schools.
“Four taxpayers in Pennsylvania have decided enough is enough after footing the bill for a school board attorney who told them that the school system could limit their First Amendment rights.
The taxpayers filed a free-speech lawsuit in federal court that could set a precedent for invalidating policies that shield both school administrators and elected officials from public criticism.
“Our lawsuit seeks case precedent to establish that citizens cannot be censored or intimidated by government officials for exercising their First Amendment rights at a school board meeting,” Simon Campbell, a former member of the Pennsbury School Board, explained.
In their suit, Campbell and three other taxpayers whose children are or were enrolled in Bucks County’s Pennsbury School District ask the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to strike down school board policies used to “censor” citizens who dissent.
The Institute for Free Speech, a Washington-based nonprofit law firm, represents the four plaintiffs. Their suit names Pennsbury School Board officers and other members as well as the board’s lawyers and current and former district officials.
Michael Clarke, an attorney for the Pennsbury School District who is among the defendants, is on record informing parents and other residents that they “don’t have First Amendment rights” during the “public comment” section of a school board meeting, according to the suit filed Oct. 1.
The lawsuit quotes Clarke at some length arguing that the First Amendment does not protect speech that violates what he describes as “reasonable guidelines.”
These guidelines could be extended to include comments that label government officials as “criminal” or “incompetent,” Clarke said during a Dec. 17 board meeting, one of several over the past year that figure in the litigation.”
Hopefully, the courts see reason and rule in favor of the four who are trying to maintain our freedom of speech.