REPORT ON THE HEARING ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

 

         Arguments were heard by Judge Michael on April 10, 2000 on the plaintiff’s motion that a preliminary injunction be issued to require the defendants to allow Mr. Newton to post the banned books list on the outside of his classroom door until trial.  Plaintiff presented one witness, Judith Krug, the director of the American Library Association’s office of intellectual freedom (the ALA is one of the plaintiffs in this action) and the defendants presented no evidence.

 

         Plaintiffs argued that Mr. Newton had a right to post the banned books list on the outside of his classroom door because the door was a limited public forum, or a place where a limited group of people (in this case teachers) have a right to voice their ideas without restriction.  According to plaintiffs, because teachers have been allowed to post items of personal interest on the outside of their doors for years without interference form school officials, the teachers now have a right to post whatever they want to on their classroom doors.  Defendants asserted that the educational mission of the school would be compromised if the court were to declare that classroom doors were public forums because there are over a hundred classroom doors in Spotswood High School, and teachers in County Middle and Elementary Schools also post personal items on their doors.  The court did not look upon plaintiff’s argument favorably, and questioned the plaintiff’s attorney on this point, who eventually conceded that there would be some restrictions on what could be posted on the doors.

         Judith Krug testified that the list had never been challenged by anybody prior to the incident at Spotswood High School, and stated that about 1500 of the 7500 banned books list that were printed last year were purchased by or given to elementary, middle and high schools.  Mrs. Krug also stated that the message of the banned books list was to exercise your rights under the First Amendment and that it was not meant to encourage or discourage students from reading the books on the list.

         Defendants’ argument centered on the title of the list (Read a Banned Book) and stated that many students would think that the list was an encouragement to read the books on the list.  Defendants also pointed out that teachers were allowed to show the list to their students in their classrooms, and that this gave the teachers an opportunity to talk about the list in the context of a discussion about censorship.  Defendants presented no evidence, indicating that they do not think that the Court will grant the preliminary injunction.

         As the plaintiffs must prove a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm in order to obtain the injunction, we think that it is unlikely that the Court will issue an injunction.  Judge Michael’s ruling should issue within a few days.