Within the spectrum of overreactions, few can rival what unfolded in New Jersey when Angela Reading, a mother and former school board member, dared to question a poster at her daughter’s elementary school.
The poster, innocuously crafted during a “Week of Respect” event, celebrated “LGBTQ+” themes, including the term “polysexuality.”
That’s a term describing an attraction to multiple genders — though the seven-year-olds likely gleaned little understanding of this.
What they did glean, however, was enough for Reading’s daughter to come home curious, which set off a chain reaction of Facebook posts, military involvement, and, yes, counter-terrorism reports.
Angela Reading’s ordeal is a cautionary tale of how questioning the wisdom of mixing elementary school art projects with complex identity politics can snowball into government surveillance, a federal lawsuit, and a First Amendment debate that feels like it was pulled from the pages of Orwell.
The Poster That Launched a Thousand Emails
It all started with a simple question. During the North Hanover Township school’s celebration of acceptance and respect, students created posters featuring LGBTQ+ flags and terms, one of which included the word “polysexual.” When Reading’s daughter innocently asked what it meant, Reading did what many parents might: she turned to Facebook to vent her frustrations.
Describing the content as “inappropriate for young children,” Reading argued that elementary school wasn’t the place for discussions about sexuality. Her post, written as a private citizen, quickly gained traction. And like clockwork, the backlash began.
Military Oversight: Protecting Democracy from Moms?
Here’s where things take a turn for the absurd. Major Chris Schilling of Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst stumbled upon Reading’s post and made it his mission to critique it. Schilling accused her of spreading “fallacies” and, astonishingly, implied that her words could provoke extremist violence.
The military’s involvement didn’t stop there. Reading’s Facebook musings were flagged to Homeland Security, state counter-terrorism units, and local law enforcement. The message was clear: a suburban mom raising concerns about her kid’s school project had somehow morphed into a national security threat.
Even the local police got in on the action, urging the administrator of the Facebook group to remove Reading’s comments, citing concerns over community safety. Nothing screams “land of the free” like law enforcement strong-arming a Facebook admin into silencing a citizen’s gripes about a poster.
Free Speech on Ice
By the time the dust settled, Angela Reading’s life resembled a war zone. She resigned from the school board, pulled her children out of public schools, and saw a job opportunity slip through her fingers. School board meetings became battlegrounds, complete with metal detectors and a police presence more suited for a mob boss’s trial than a PTA squabble.
Through it all, Reading held firm. She condemned what she called an “over-the-top” response and warned about the dangerous precedent it set. The chilling effect was undeniable—what parent would dare speak out, knowing they could end up on Homeland Security’s radar?
The Courtroom Drama
Reading’s legal battle, Reading v. North Hanover Township, quickly became a test case for free speech in the digital age. Her lawsuit alleged that government officials orchestrated a campaign of censorship and retaliation against her.
To its credit, the Third Circuit Court acknowledged that the government’s actions were “beyond the pale.” But when it came time to grant a preliminary injunction, the court punted. The rationale? Not enough evidence that the retaliation was ongoing or likely to recur. In short: since the harassment had tapered off, Reading should count her blessings and move on. The decision ignored the broader implications — that the damage had already been done and that the mere threat of such overreach was enough to silence dissent.
We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.
A Precedent Worth Questioning
This is all about the creeping normalization of government overreach in the name of safety and civility. The Angela Readings of the world are canaries in the coal mine, raising alarms about how dissent — no matter how mild or misplaced — can be met with disproportionate force.
Sure, Reading’s critics may argue that her post stirred unnecessary controversy. But when the military, police, and counter-terrorism units are marshaled against a single parent with a Facebook account, perhaps it’s time to reconsider who’s really overreacting.
