“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech. While the concept seems simple enough, it also seems that one person’s free speech can often feel threatening or unwarranted by another. Despite an almost universal appreciation for the right of free speech in the United States, there are always those who are upset by the words or ideas of others when those words don’t align with their personal views. The response to contrary ideas is often an effort to silence them, rather than to meet them in the court of public opinion. This is particularly so when the words accompany an unpopular viewpoint. However, the founding fathers recognized that a debate is won by the better argument, not by silencing the opposing viewpoint. Amongst other recent cases in public schools, see how free speech is once again front and center in our region. 
Free speech after school?
In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Saucon Valley School District, Judge Gallagher of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was confronted with Satanic Temple’s controversial views on religion, the community’s negative reactions thereto, and ultimately, the efforts of some to silence them.
Saucon Valley School District has a policy “to make available the facilities of the school district to organizations, associations and individuals of the community for civic, cultural, educational and recreational activities when the scheduling of these activities does not interfere with the educational program of the district.” In compliance with the policy, The Satanic Temple applied for use of District facilities to hold an After School Satan Club on certain dates from school dismissal until 4:30 p.m. In addition to meeting space, the application also requested tables and chairs for 3 volunteers and an estimated 5 – 10 attendees.
Initially, the School District granted the request but, after a public outcry, determined that the After School Satan Club had violated the District’s policies on advertising and revoked the permission. When the District refused to reconsider, The Satanic Temple initiated a court action seeking injunctive relief.
Free speech – allowing ideas that offend
In deciding the case, Judge Gallagher recognized at the outset that, “When confronted with a challenge to free speech, the government’s first instinct must be to forward expression rather than quash it. Particularly when the content is controversial or inconvenient. Nothing less is consistent with the expressed purpose of American government to secure the core, innate rights of its people.”
In reaching the merits of the underlying dispute, the Court noted that the District had the burden of demonstrating its decision to rescind its approval of The Satanic Temple’s application was constitutional. Ultimately, the Court found that the decision was unconstitutionally based on the Satanic Temple’s controversial viewpoint, finding, that the decision violated the “bedrock First Amendment principle that speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”
The Satanic Temple had alleged that it sought access to the District’s forum “to provide young people with an alternative to other religious clubs that meet on campus after school” and to express TST’s viewpoint of the “seven Satanic virtues” and of “Satan…as a literary figure who represents a metaphorical construct of rejecting tyranny, championing the human mind and spirit, and seeking justice and egalitarianism for all.” As such, it sought to present a constitutionally protected viewpoint on religion and philosophy.
Free speech doesn’t discriminate
Judge Gallagher acknowledged that the District was faced with difficult, time-sensitive decisions. However, the Court’s analysis must be guided by the law, not practical decision-making considerations or even the Court’s own personal opinions.
As such, the law requires the Court to determine whether the District’s decision to rescind approval of the Satanic Temple’s application was based on the content of its religious viewpoint and the reactions to it. The Court concluded it was. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the District engaged in viewpoint discrimination. Because the actual loss of First Amendment freedoms, even if for a “minimal” period of time, “unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” the Court ordered the District to permit the After School Satan Club to meet on the three dates and at the location previously approved.
If you or your organization are facing a First Amendment violation, please reach out to our Litigation team for representation.