 Photo obtained from court docket Courtesy of Clay Good LEARN MORE >> VIDEO: Activists and attorneys speak outside the U.S. Supreme Court after oral arguments in Morse v. Frederick >> AUDIO: An exclusive interview with Joseph Frederick and student free speech hero, Mary Beth Tinker, plaintiff in the landmark Tinker v. Des Moines case >> AUDIO: Joseph Frederick and his attorneys talk about the background of Frederick's "Free Speech Experiment" |
In one of the most important student free speech cases in decades, the ACLU joined attorneys for former student Joseph Frederick before the U.S. Supreme Court this week and urged the high court not to abandon its famous 1969 ruling that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
In 2002, high school senior Joseph Frederick was suspended from his Juneau, AK high school for displaying a sign that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" at an Olympic Torch Relay not sponsored by the school.
“For decades the law has been that students have the constitutional right to free speech even on school campuses,” said Frederick’s attorney, Douglas K. Mertz, who argued the case for the ACLU. “This is not a case about drugs or drug policy. This case is about freedom of speech and teaching our young people the importance of free speech.”
In a recent phone interview with Frederick, he stated: “I conducted my free speech experiment in order to assert my rights at a time when I felt that free speech was being eroded in America. The high school I attended advocated that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did not apply to students. I was skeptical of my own free speech rights and I wanted to know more precisely the boundaries of my freedom.”
The case has attracted support from more than a dozen groups across the ideological spectrum, from the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, Christian Legal Society and Rutherford Institute to the Student Press Law Center, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Drug Policy Alliance and National Coalition Against Censorship.
>> Learn more about Morse v. Frederick
Congress Begins Hearings on FBI Abuse of Patriot Powers
In long overdue hearings on the controversial “National Security Letter” provisions of the Patriot Act, the ACLU urged lawmakers to demand truth and accountability from the administration about the FBI’s abuses of its NSL powers, which allow agents to make sweeping demands for sensitive personal records without court approval. Two weeks ago, the Department of Justice’s Inspector General rebuked the FBI with a report documenting rampant FBI misuse and abuse of the NSL powers expanded by the Patriot Act powers.
That report echoed what we have been saying for years: The FBI has stretched and even broken the law. “The IG report confirmed our worst fears about the Patriot Act,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “FBI agents, whatever their intentions, misused and abused the NSL power at the expense of our fundamental freedoms. This is clear evidence that the Patriot Act must be fixed and brought in line with the Constitution.”
The IG’s audit found serious breaches of the Attorney General’s Guidelines, FBI policy, and numerous violations of the law. The FBI is now making tens of thousands more National Security Letter requests than ever imagined. Tracking of the NSLs is sloppy, resulting in thousands of innocent Americans being entered into databases shared with numerous U.S. agencies and foreign governments.
The expanded NSL authority authorizes the FBI to demand a range of personal records without court approval, such as the identity of a person who has visited a particular website on a library computer or who has engaged in anonymous speech on the Internet. Recipients of NSLs are gagged from discussing them.
The ACLU has challenged the NSL power in court with two cases: one involving an Internet Service Provider; the second a group of librarians. In both cases, the judges ruled that the gag orders were unconstitutional. After those rulings Congress amended the law to fix some problems, but made the "gag" provision even more oppressive. The ACLU has now gone back to court to challenge the constitutionality of the amended law.
Read more about the ACLU’s work on NSLs, the IG report and our legal challenges at: www.aclu.org/nsl
Pennsylvania Trial Over Immigrant Rights Opens
A rally in early September 2006 was held to protest the anti-immigrant ordinance in Hazleton, Pennsylvania.
ACLU attorneys were in federal court this week to challenge a local law that would legitimize discrimination against the immigrant community in Hazleton, PA. Current law punishes landlords and employers who do business with undocumented immigrants.
“Anti-immigrant laws like those in Hazleton are misguided, unconstitutional and undemocratic,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the national ACLU. “These laws encourage racial profiling and undercut American values of fairness and equality.”
Judge James M. Munley, who is presiding over the trial, issued a temporary restraining order in October blocking the ordinances from taking effect until a decision is reached in the case.
Without citing any evidence, Hazleton officials have claimed that undocumented immigrants are responsible for an increase in local crime. Analysis of U.S. Census data over the past three decades -- a period of high immigration -- shows that immigrants have the lowest incarceration rates of young men of every ethnic group.
More than 80 cities and towns across America have proposed laws similar to those in Hazleton.
The Constitution expressly ensures that the government must accord fair and equal treatment to every individual, regardless of citizenship or immigration status. The Constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection under law apply to all ‘persons,’ in contrast to other constitutional guarantees that apply only to ‘citizens.’
In decisions spanning more than a century, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that certain constitutional guarantees apply to every person within U.S. borders, including “aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful.” But once here, even undocumented immigrants have certain constitutional rights, including the right to freedom of speech and religion, the right to be treated fairly and the right to privacy.
To learn more about this case and anti-immigrant ordinances across the country, go to www.aclu.org/hazleton.
White House Staff Face Lawsuit for Ejecting Denver Residents from Event
Image courtesy of denverthree.orgA new complaint against three White House staffers challenges the illegal ejection of Denver residents from a presidential town hall funded by taxpayer dollars. Although they did nothing to disrupt the event, three local residents were singled out because of an anti-war bumper sticker on their car.
“There has been a consistent pattern from the White House of handpicking which Americans are allowed entry to public events,” said ACLU Senior Staff Attorney Chris Hansen, who is lead counsel in this case. “That is unacceptable when taxpayers of all political stripes are footing the bill.”
The complaint was filed in an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of Leslie Weise and Alex Young. Since the 2005 incident, the White House has refused to admit any role. But Michael Casper, a Republican volunteer at the event who is also named in the ACLU lawsuit, said in a deposition that two White House employees directed him to throw out Weise and Young.
Weise was stopped upon entering the event, after a White House staffer noticed a bumper sticker on her car that read, “No More Blood for Oil.” Weise was warned by Michael Casper that she had been “ID’d,” and that she would be arrested if she had any ill intentions. She was then allowed to enter, but Casper came back and forcibly removed Weise and Young after receiving official orders from White House staff.
The Denver incident is not isolated. Other Americans have been forced to leave open-to-the-public presidential visits around the country.
>> Learn more about the complaint
Lawsuits Ask That Children be Released from Prison-Like Conditions in Texas
 Nixcari, a child held at Hutto Detention Facility LEARN MORE >> VIDEO: A new Freedom Files video short provides a shocking glimpse into conditions at the T. Don Hutto detention facility in Taylor, Texas >> VIEW MORE: Plaintiffs' statements and drawings by some of the children detained at Hutto |
A new Freedom Files video short provides a shocking glimpse into conditions at a Texas facility to detain immigrants run by the Department of Homeland Security. Of the approximately 400 detainees at the Hutto Detention Facility, many are children who belong to refugee families seeking political asylum in the U.S. after escaping persecution in their country of origin.
The video introduces viewers to children like two-year old Angi and her older sister Nixcari, who had been confined for months in the bleak, barbed-wire encased Hutto facility, where children wear prison garb and are held in small cells for the majority of each day. Recreational time is severely limited as are educational opportunities. Access to medical, dental and mental health treatment is inadequate. From one mother who was confined with her 12 year-old: “…a psychological trauma my daughter and I will carry with us for the rest of our lives.”
No comments:
Post a Comment