The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

About The Volokh Conspiracy Editorial Independence Who we are Books Volokh Daily Email Archives Search DMCA RSS

Free Speech

"Gossip," "Abusive Language," and "Soft Beta Males" in Public Comments at School Board Meetings

Eugene Volokh | 4.28.2026 1:21 PM

Blanchard v. Augusta Bd. of Ed., decided yesterday by Judge Stacey Neumann (D. Me.), held that the First Amendment was likely violated by school board public commentary policies forbidding

The parties had agreed that the public comment period was a "limited public forum," a place opened up by the government for speech on particular subjects. In a limited public forum, speech restrictions must be viewpoint-neutral and reasonable. The court then held that the four restrictions noted above violated one or both of these elements:

[1.] Gossip:

By its terms, the gossip prohibition turns on what is being said: "rumors or information about the behavior or personal lives of other people." See Gossip, Merriam-Webster. Such a category of speech does not exist solely and definitively outside of that which relates to school or education matters. Comments about the conduct or personal behavior of teachers, administrators, or Board members may indeed bear directly on school operations and policy….

[And] Policy BEDH provides no objective standard to distinguish "gossip" related to school and education matters from other such commentary. That lack of clarity leaves speakers guessing at what is allowed and invites arbitrary enforcement by officials presiding over the meetings. Without a workable line, there is no "sensible basis for distinguishing what may come in from what must stay out." In practice, the rule allows the presiding officer's own sensibilities to determine what counts as "gossip," which "openly invites viewpoint discrimination."

The overbreadth concerns are equally apparent. Defined as "rumors or information about the behavior or personal lives of other people," the term "gossip" can easily encompass speech at the heart of the Board's public comment period—for example, a parent repeating information they have heard about a teacher's behavior in the school that relates to their child's education or a citizen relaying information about an administrator's conduct relevant to policy or budgeting decisions. Such speech may be sharply worded but still fully protected and directly tied to school business. A rule that sweeps this speech broadly into the category of "gossip" risks silencing criticism that the First Amendment protects….

[2.] Abusive language:

Merriam Webster defines "abusive" as "harsh and insulting" or "using harsh and insulting language." At the July 2025 Board meeting, the Chair similarly defined abusive language as "language that is harmful or offensive to a person." Read this way, the policy singles out speech that offends or insults its target. This is classic viewpoint discrimination. See Matal v. Tam (2017) ("Giving offense is a viewpoint."). Other courts evaluating comparable school board policies have reached the same conclusion.

To be sure, the Board is not powerless to regulate all manifestations of abusive speech. A policy that targets narrow, viewpoint-neutral characteristics—such as actual disruption, shouting, threats, or true harassment—or........

© Reason.com