School board can't
muzzle critics

A federal judge in New Jersey yesterday ordered a local school board to stop restricting speech it deemed "personally directed" from members of the community at public meetings – a policy stemming from a former strip club manager serving as president of the panel who didn't appreciate his critics' comments.

According to a statement from law group Alliance Defense Fund, an attorney allied with the group, Dennis Caufield, in June asked the court for the order. He was acting on behalf of residents of the Ashbury Park School District who were critical of the decision by the superintendent to appoint as president of the board the former manager of a local strip club. The establishment organizes and promotes events featuring pornography actors and "hot-hot go-go boys," the law group stated. As general manager of Club Paradise, school board President Robert DiSanto was a prominent contributor to the club's website, which reportedly features lewd materials, links to pornography and no age verification requirement.

TRENDING: Ben Carson stands for Trump, blasts impeachment, censorship, swamp-creature GOP in bold interview

During the public-comment section of a school board meeting, ADF says, DiSanto prevented two citizens from expressing concern over his direction of education policy in the same community his former club is located.

"We agree with the court that the policy does not pass constitutional muster," Caufield said. "The school board president's judgment and character is a legitimate question for the community to address. The president cannot rely on a vague and subjective policy to silence legitimate public comment on his fitness to direct children's education."

Judge Mary Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey wrote in the court's order: "We find that the words 'personally directed ...' have the effect of an impermissible viewpoint-based restraint and are unconstitutional. Because we find the challenged provision to be an unconstitutional restraint on speech in a limited public forum, we find that the plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their challenge to this provision of the Bylaw."

Related special offer:

RELATED: Court case determines church must shut down

Get Alliance Defense Fund's devastating expos? of the American Civil Liberties Union: "ACLU vs. America"