CIVIL LIBERTIES

AMERICAN ARRESTED FOR FLYING FLAG UPSIDE DOWN

MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD, PROGRESSIVE- Scott Roe was practicing with his band,
"Corruption of Blood," on July 3 at his home in Ottumwa, Iowa. The
police came and said he was violating a new city noise ordinance. So
that was the end of the practice session. Roe wasn't happy about it, so
he staged a protest the next day. He planted an upside down flag in his
front yard and had a cutout of a police officer standing in front of it.
The band's name was written in block letters across the flag. It didn't
take long for Officer Mark Milligan and Sergeant Chris Logan of the
Ottumwa Police Department to show up. A neighbor had evidently
complained about the upside down flag in the yard.

The officers warned Roe that he'd be arrested if he didn't take the flag
down. He refused, asserting his First Amendment rights. Whereupon he was
arrested and charge with violating Iowa's flag desecration statute,
Chapter 718A. All of this according to the lawsuit that Roe has filed
against Milligan and Logan and the Ottumwa Police Department. . .

Roe's suit says the Iowa statute dates back to 1900 and is an "overly
broad restriction of speech that is protected under the First
Amendment."

http://www.alternet.org/rights/38883/

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

STATES MOVING TO RESTRICT VOTING RIGHTS

EULA HOLMES, WORLD SOCIALIST - A determined effort is under way in
numerous states across the US to further restrict ballot access and
voting rights. . . First, state governments are passing laws requiring
individuals to present additional identification when they vote. Second,
a number of state governments are enacting legislation placing strict
limits on voter registration drives. In the vast majority of cases, the
new regulations are being pushed by state legislators who claim they
want to curb voter fraud. In reality, the restrictions are aimed at
denying the right to vote-and are disproportionately targeted at the
poor, minorities and the elderly.

In Missouri, a bill signed into law June 14 by Governor Matt Blunt, a
Republican, requires voters there to show a government-issued photo ID
as soon as the November elections. Nearly 200,000 Missourians registered
to vote do not have state-issued photo IDs and may be denied the right
to vote if they do not obtain such identification in time.
Most of those without a government-issued photo ID are senior citizens,
the disabled or the urban and rural poor. Legislators offered to provide
free photo IDs to all these citizens in time for the election, or to
offer them a provisional ballot. Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, who
opposes the new law, pointed out that of the approximately 8,000
provisional ballots cast in Missouri in 2004, only about 3,000 were ever
counted. . .

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/jul2006/vote-j17.shtml

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

LAS VEGAS BANS FEEDING POOR IN PARK

DAVID MCGRATH SCHWARTZ, LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL - If someone looks like
he could use a meal, be warned: Giving him a sandwich in a Las Vegas
park could land you in jail.
The Las Vegas City Council passed an ordinance Wednesday that bans
providing food or meals to the indigent for free or a nominal fee in
parks. The measure is an attempt to stop so-called "mobile soup
kitchens" from operating in parks, where residents say they attract the
homeless and render the city facilities unusable by families.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada called the ordinance
blatantly unconstitutional, unenforceable and the latest attempt by the
city to hide and harass the homeless instead of constructively
addressing their plight.

"So the only people who get to eat are those who have enough money?
Those who get (government) assistance can't eat at your picnic?" asked
ACLU attorney Allen Lichtenstein. "I've heard of some rather strange and
extreme measures from other cities. I've never heard of something like
this. It's mind-boggling."

The city's new ordinance, which officials could begin enforcing as early
as Friday, defines an indigent as a "person whom a reasonable ordinary
person would believe to be entitled to apply for or receive assistance"
from the government under state law.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jul-20-Thu-2006/news/
8589438.html

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

LAW SUITS CHALLENGE ARREST OF PEACEFUL PROTESTERS AT BUSH RALLIES

AP - When school was canceled to accommodate a campaign visit by
President Bush, the two 55-year-old teachers reckoned the time was ripe
to voice their simmering discontent with the administration's policies.
Christine Nelson showed up at the Cedar Rapids rally with a
Kerry-Edwards button pinned on her T-shirt; Alice McCabe clutched a
small, paper sign stating "No More War." What could be more American,
they thought, than mixing a little dissent with the bunting and buzz of
a get-out-the-vote rally headlined by the president? Their reward: a
pair of handcuffs and a strip search at the county jail.

Authorities say they were arrested because they refused to obey
reasonable security restrictions, but the women disagree: "Because I had
a dissenting opinion, they did what they needed to do to get me out of
the way," said Nelson, who teaches history and government at one of this
city's middle schools. "I tell my students all the time about how people
came to this country for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, that
those rights and others are sacred. And all along I've been thinking to
myself, 'not at least during this administration.'". . .

In the months before the 2004 election, dozens of people across the
nation were banished from or arrested at Bush political rallies, some
for heckling the president, others simply for holding signs or wearing
clothing that expressed opposition to the war and administration
policies.

Similar things have happened at official, taxpayer-funded, presidential
visits, before and after the election. Some targeted by security have
been escorted from events, while others have been arrested and charged
with misdemeanors that were later dropped by local prosecutors.

Now, in federal courthouses from Charleston, W.Va., to Denver, federal
officials and state and local authorities are being forced to defend
themselves against lawsuits challenging the arrests and security
policies.

While the circumstances differ, the cases share the same fundamental
themes. Generally, they accuse federal officials of developing security
measures to identify, segregate, deny entry or expel dissenters. . .

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060723/1026458.asp