03-29-2000
ACLU Newsfeed -- ACLU News Direct to YOU!
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE ACLU NEWSROOM
**The Latest News Can Always Be Found At:**
http://www.aclu.org/news/pressind.html
* Two Senators Switch Positions
To Send Flag Amendment to Resounding Defeat
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n032900b.html
* ACLU Launches Special Web Campaign
On Government Threats to Civil Liberties
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n032900a.html
* Ruling in "Censorware" Copyright Controversy
Leaves Clients, Consumers in the Dark, ACLU Says
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n032800b.html
* ACLU Urges High Court to Reject Texas School's
"One Vote, One Prayer" Policy at Football Games
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n032800a.html
* ACLU Joins Fray Over Cyber Patrol "Censorware"
On Behalf of U.S. Web Site Hosts
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n032400a.html
* Senate Panel Approves Asset Forfeiture Reform
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n032300b.html
* DNA Databases Hold More Dangers
Than Meet the Eye, ACLU Says
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n032300a.html
* Other Recent ACLU News Releases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Two Senators Switch Positions
To Send Flag Amendment to Resounding Defeat
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, March 29, 2000
Contact: DC Media Relations Office
media@dcaclu.org
WASHINGTON -- Two U.S. Senators today switched their positions
and joined
with 35 of their colleagues to resoundingly defeat a proposed
constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the flag. The
American Civil
Liberties Union applauded the votes and commended Senators
Robert Byrd of
West Virginia and Richard Bryan of Nevada for standing up for
the nation's
most fundamental freedoms.
"This issue goes to the heart of what this country and our flag
stands
for," said Terri Schroeder, an ACLU legislative representative.
"The First
Amendment is the very foundation of the freedoms the flag
represents."
The amendment failed by a vote of 63 to 37, four votes shy of
the
two-thirds necessary to send the proposal to the states. Last
June, the
House passed the amendment by a vote of 305 to 124, just 15
votes more than
the 290 required for passage of a constitutional amendment.
Today's vote marked the fourth time in a little over a decade
that the
Senate has rejected the proposed constitutional amendment. The
vote,
however, was a stark reversal of the decade-long trend toward
increasing
margins in support of the amendment.
The proposed constitutional amendment would be the first to
restrict the
freedoms guaranteed Americans by the Bill of Rights. Since the
original
Bill of Rights the United States Constitution has been amended
only 17
times, and one of those -- Prohibition -- was a mistake that had
to be
repealed by yet another constitutional amendment.
"The American right to freedom of expression has often resulted
in
offensive speech. But that freedom cannot survive if exceptions
are made
every time someone in power decides certain forms of expression
are too
offensive to permit," Schroeder said. "If we allow that, our
right to
speech will inevitably depend on what the government is willing
to permit
-- the very situation the First Amendment was designed to
prevent."
The Senators who switched their votes today joined other
prominent
Americans like retired Gen. Colin Powell, former Chairman of the
Joint
Chief of Staff and former Senator John Glenn, in opposing the
amendment.
In a letter cited on the Senate floor a great deal today,
General Powell
said: "The First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of
speech and
expression applies not just to that with which we agree or
disagree, but
also that which we find outrageous. I would not amend that great
shield of
democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying
proudly long
after they have slunk away."
The ACLU's Schroeder noted that thousands of veterans have
contacted the
ACLU to register their opposition to the amendment and to offer
their help
in dispelling the myth that veterans speak with one voice about
the
proposed amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ACLU Launches Special Web Campaign
On Government Threats to Civil Liberties
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, March 29, 2000
NEW YORK - Alarmed by the creeping authoritarianism of the
federal
government, the American Civil Liberties Union today launched a
special web
campaign to focus public attention on new threats to individual
freedom and
liberty.
"Throughout our history there has never been an era when the
government
hasn't tried to expand its authority and control at the expense
of our
individual rights and liberties," said Ira Glasser, ACLU
Executive
Director.
"Today," Glasser continued, "the creeping authoritarianism of
our own
government poses a threat to constitutional principles of
freedom and
liberty that is as ominous and foreboding as anything we've
faced in the
past."
The new web campaign -- which can be found at
http://www.aclu.org/liberties
-- features several personal stories from individuals who have
faced
threats to their liberty. Other elements of the special campaign
include an
interactive survey, links to special faxable letters to Congress
and a
postcard utility to allow users to spread the word about the
threats to our
rights.
The ACLU provides examples of Liberties at Risk in several broad
categories, including free speech, privacy, fairness and threats
from the
so-called War on Drugs. The collection tells the stories of
several
individuals who have faced government abuses including an
African-American
Army sergeant who faced a terrifying race profiling stop in
Oklahoma. Also
featured is the story of an Egyptian immigrant who was reunited
with his
family after nearly four years of being imprisoned based on
"secret
evidence."
The "Liberties at Risk" campaign will be featured on the ACLU
website for
eight weeks. During this time, the ACLU will be updating the
site with case
studies and other information to further highlight government
infringement
on civil liberties.
The ACLU is a nationwide, non-partisan organization dedicated to
defending
and preserving the Bill of Rights for all individuals through
litigation,
legislation and public education. Headquartered in New York
City, the ACLU
has 53 staffed affiliates in major cities, more than 300
chapters
nationwide and a legislative office in Washington, D.C. The bulk
of its $35
million annual budget is raised by contributions from members -
275,000
strong - and gifts and grants from other individuals and
foundations. The
ACLU does not accept government funds.
The Special Web Campaign Can Be Found At:
http://www.aclu.org/liberties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruling in "Censorware" Copyright Controversy
Leaves Clients, Consumers in the Dark, ACLU Says
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, March 28, 2000
NEW YORK -- The settlement of a lawsuit between owners of the
Internet
blocking program Cyber Patrol and the authors of a code allowing
users to
"unlock" its key list of blocked Web sites leaves consumers and
Web
operators in the dark, the American Civil Liberties Union said
today.
In an opinion issued late today, Judge Edward F. Harrington
refused to say
whether U.S. website operators who posted "mirror" copies of the
program
are subject to the settlement terms. He also appeared to suggest
that
mirror sites could test that question only by risking a contempt
charge
that could lead to fines and jail.
"We respectfully disagree with the court's opinion and we are
weighing our
legal options," said Chris Hansen, an ACLU senior staff attorney
and lead
counsel in the case.
Although the right of parents to use the software was never at
issue, Judge
Harrington said the case "raises a profound societal issue,
namely, who is
to control the educational and intellectual nourishment of young
children -
the parents or the purveyors of pornography and the merchants of
death and
violence."
But by allowing Mattel Inc., the owners of Cyber Patrol, to
control the
dissemination of the decoding program, the judges' ruling leaves
parents in
the dark about the products they are buying to protect their
children,
Hansen said.
"Today's development only reinforces our view that the less
parents know
about what Cyber Patrol blocks, the more they are being led
astray by
Mattel and the other manufacturers who consider their 'list of
ingredients'
top secret," he added.
The ACLU entered the case last Friday on behalf of three U.S.
Web site
operators who had posted "mirror" copies of the decoding
program. In the
wake of the court's ruling, the three Web site owners -- Waldo
L. Jaquith,
Lindsay Haisley and Bennett Haselton -- said they have not yet
decided
whether to remove their copies of the software decoding key.
The case was filed by the national ACLU along with its
Massachusetts
affiliate, private attorney Jessica Litman of New York and the
Electronic
Privacy Information Center based in Washington, D.C.
The ACLU's opposition to motion for preliminary injunction in
the case is
online at:
http://www.aclu.org/court/cyberpatrol_motion.html
The motion to quash subpoenas is online at:
http://www.aclu.org/court/cyberpatrol_quash.html
The court's ruling is posted on EPIC's website at:
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorware/cp_injunction.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ACLU Urges High Court to Reject Texas School's
"One Vote, One Prayer" Policy at Football Games
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, March 28, 2000
WASHINGTON -- In a hearing before the United States Supreme
Court
tomorrow,
the American Civil Liberties Union will urge the Justices to
reject a Texas
school district's sponsorship of student-led prayer at football
games.
The argument, scheduled to take place at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow
morning, marks
the first time since 1992 that the Court has considered the
constitutionality of school-sponsored prayer. Anthony Griffin,
an attorney
in private practice in Galveston, is arguing the case before the
court on
behalf of the ACLU.
The identities of the two families represented in the lawsuit -
one
Catholic and one Mormon - were sealed by the courts after
students were
ostracized and subjected to harrassment and intimidation. Their
lawsuit
alleged that the school district's policy of allowing students
to lead
prayers at home football games violated the First Amendment by
creating a
"pervasive religious atmosphere."
But after changing the official prayer conducted by a chaplain
to a
voluntary student "invocation," the school claimed that any
restriction on
the prayer chosen by that student would be a violation of
religious
liberty. The students were asked to vote both on whether to have
an
invocation and on who would lead it.
"Religion in this country is a matter of individual conscience
and is not
subject to a majority vote," Griffin said. "Religious belief and
expression
is flourishing in our country precisely because America has
avoided the
mistakes of other countries and resisted the temptation for the
government
to endorse religion."
In its legal brief, the ACLU said that allowing students to
choose a prayer
leader by secret ballot does not change the fact that the prayer
is a
school-sponsored activity and that, in any case, the
Constitution exists
precisely to protect those with minority views against the
tyranny of the
majority.
"Everyone knows that what is at stake here is not student free
speech,"
said Douglas Laycock, a professor of law who was the primary
author of the
ACLU's brief in the case. "This case instead deals with a
school's attempt
to force the majority's religious viewpoint on all students."
Ruling on the case in 1999, a federal appeals court agreed,
saying that
official prayers and other "solemnizing ceremonies" before
football games
violated the Constitutional guarantee of religious liberty for
all.
Though alarmists claim that prayer is banned from school,
student religious
groups are thriving nationwide, with an estimated 10,000
Christian clubs
operating in high schools across the country.
Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the national ACLU, noted
that the
Supreme Court has repeatedly warned against the dangers of
school-sponsored
prayers in public schools, not out of hostility to religion but
to protect
the religious freedom of each student. Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor, a
Reagan appointee, wrote that state endorsement of religion,
"sends a
message to non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full
members of the
political community."
The case is Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, No.
99-62.
Attorneys Griffin, Shapiro and Laycock filed the ACLU brief on
behalf of
the "Doe" families, who remain anonymous. A decision in the case
is
expected by the close of the Court's term in late June.
The ACLU's brief is online at:
http://www.aclu.org/court/santafe.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ACLU Joins Fray Over Cyber Patrol "Censorware"
On Behalf of U.S. Web Site Hosts
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, March 24, 2000
NEW YORK -- The American Civil Liberties Union will enter a
Boston court
this Monday to argue that a ban on a program allowing users to
decode the
Internet blocking software Cyber Patrol constitutes a "classic
prior
restraint on speech" in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The Cyber Patrol controversy is but the latest round in a heated
debate
over flaws in so-called filtering software that both
"overblocks"
non-pornographic web sites on subjects like Super Bowl XXX and
fails to
block many sites parents may not deem appropriate for their
children.
In legal papers filed with the court today, the ACLU said that
Cyber
Patrol's lawsuit is unnecessary because the company can easily
block their
customers from accessing any Web site or page on which the
decoding program
appears, whereas some of the Web sites may be out of the
jurisdiction of
the court.
Acting on behalf of three U.S. Web site operators who posted
"mirror"
copies of the decoding program, the ACLU said their free speech
rights
would be violated if the court granted the company's request for
a
preliminary injunction against the Swedish and Canadian creators
of the
program.
"Under Cyber Patrol's logic, I'd be breaking the law if I bought
a Ford
Mustang and looked under the hood," said Chris Hansen, a senior
ACLU staff
attorney and lead counsel in the case. "I don't think it is
asking too much
for Cyber Patrol and other software companies to tell the
American public
exactly what their software blocks, especially when Congress
wants to force
both children and adults to use it."
Last Friday, March 17, U.S. District Judge Edward F. Harrington
granted a
10-day temporary restraining order against the creators of the
program.
Cyber Patrol then sent subpoenas to the ACLU's clients,
suggesting that
they would be bound by that order and any future court bans.
In addition, at least one American reporter has confirmed
receipt of
subpoena from Cyber Patrol ordering him to reveal the name of
"each and
every person who produced, received, viewed, downloaded or
accessed" the
decoding program from his site.
The Web site operators, Waldo L. Jaquith, Lindsay Haisley and
Bennett
Haselton, each said that they posted the decoding program as a
form of
political protest against Cyber Patrol's legal actions and
against
"censorware" in general. Their Web sites can be found at:
http://www.peacefire.org (Haselton),
http://www.fmp.com
(Haisley) and
http://www.waldo.net (Jasquith).
"We thought it would be educational for some politicians, who
are
recommending blocking software for use in every school in the
country, to
see the mistakes that the codebreakers found in Cyber Patrol's
list," said
Haselton, 21, operator of Peacefire.org, a Web site he founded
specifically
to defend the free-speech interests of people under 18 on the
Internet.
Haselton said that Peacefire recently decrypted the lists of
sites blocked
by two other programs -- I-Gear and X-Stop -- and found that
they had error
rates between 68 and 76 percent for blocking pages in the
educational
".edu" domain.
Haselton, Jasquith, and Haisley are represented as "nonparties"
to the
Cyber Patrol lawsuit by Hansen of the national ACLU, Sarah
Wunsch, an
attorney with the ACLU of Massachusetts, David Sobel, general
counsel for
the Electronic Privacy Information Center (
http://www.epic.org/)
based in
Washington, and Jessica Littman, a visiting professor of law at
New York
University.
In 1998, a federal district judge said
(
http://www.aclu.org/news/n112398a.html) that forcing adults to
use
blocking software like Cyber Patrol in public libraries "offends
the
guarantee of free speech." Last month, a proposal aimed at
forcing a
Michigan public library to install Web filtering software on
computers was
defeated by voters.
"With Congress (
http://www.aclu.org/action/jjfiltering106.html)
renewing
efforts to mandate use of such flawed software in public schools
and
libraries, the Cyber Patrol battle only serves to emphasize that
information on what is blocked must be made available to
consumers, let
alone libraries and schools," Hansen said.
The hearing in Microsystems Software, Inc. V. Scandinavia
Online,
IslandNet.com, Eddy L.O. Jansson and Matthew Skala, Civil Action
No.00-10488-EFH, will take place on Monday, March 27, at 2:00
p.m. in U.S.
District Court in Boston.
The ACLU's opposition to motion for preliminary injunction in
the case is
online at:
http://www.aclu.org/court/cyberpatrol_motion.html
The motion to quash subpoenas is online at:
http://www.aclu.org/court/cyberpatrol_quash.html
Cyber Patrol is a subsidiary of toy company giant Mattel Inc.,
which is
publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Panel Approves Asset Forfeiture Reform
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, March 23, 2000
Contact: DC Media Relations Office
media@dcaclu.org
WASHINGTON -- A Senate panel today unanimously approved a
measure that
would help return the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"
as the
standard of our country's justice system.
"Confiscating personal property without ever proving wrongdoing
is what
most of us expect from dictatorships, not from the country that
is supposed
to be a world leader in justice and democracy," said Rachel
King, a
Legislative Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Yet the nation's misguided -- and much abused -- civil asset
forfeiture
laws allow the government to confiscate property from innocent
owners who
are never even charged with a crime.
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill (S.1931) that
would reform
the laws' worst abuses. The measure now heads to the Senate
floor. A
similar measure was passed with overwhelming approval in a House
vote of
375 to 48 in late June.
"Allowing law enforcement authorities to take away a vehicle or
a home
without so much as a hearing or the right to a lawyer flies in
the face of
American values," King said. "Yet that is exactly what is
happening across
our country every day."
The reform measure before the Senate is sponsored by Sens. Orrin
Hatch
(R-UT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and is supported by individuals
and
organizations from across the ideological spectrum, including
the Chamber
of Commerce and the NRA. Others supporting the bill include
former
high-ranking Republicans like Robert Bork, Ed Meese, Dick
Thornburg and
three former Democratic Attorneys General.
While the ACLU supports the bill as an important first step, it
noted that
the House bill, sponsored by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), has
stronger reforms.
The Hyde bill places a higher burden of proof for the government
to keep
seized property and provides more comprehensive access to a
lawyer to
people whose property is seized.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DNA Databases Hold More Dangers
Than Meet the Eye, ACLU Says
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, March 23, 2000
Contact: DC Media Relations Office
media@dcaclu.org
WASHINGTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union today urged
members of
Congress to open their eyes to the unseen dangers presented by
the
government's zeal to create a federal database of DNA from
people suspected
of violating the law.
"While DNA databases may be useful to identify criminals, I am
skeptical
that we will ward off the temptation to expand their use," said
Barry
Steinhardt, Associate Director of the ACLU. "In the last ten
years alone we
have gone from collecting DNA only from convicted sex offenders
to now
including people who have been arrested but never convicted of a
crime.
"There have even been proposals to store newborns' DNA for
future use by
law enforcement," Steinhardt added. "Although we have already
entered the
realm of the 'Brave New World,' it is not too late to turn
back."
Steinhardt's comments came in testimony before the House
Judiciary
Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, which is considering three
different
proposals to establish rules and funding for CODIS, the federal
DNA
database.
The ACLU urged the committee to ensure that any proposal it
adopts include
measures to guarantee that only persons convicted of serious
violent
felonies have their DNA entered into CODIS (the Combined
Offendor DNA Index
System), that criminal defendants have access to DNA testing to
establish
their innocence and that the government destroy the physical
sample used to
provide DNA.
"While the FBI would like us to believe that the samples will
never be used
for anything besides catching criminals, the sad truth is that
unless the
samples are destroyed at some point they will be used
improperly,"
Steinhardt said.
The Department of Defense, for example, has collected about
three million
samples from service personnel, purportedly to identify remains
of a
soldier killed on duty. Yet it not only keeps those samples long
after the
individual has left the military, it refuses to write rules
denying third
parties access to the records.
"Proponents of DNA databases argue that they can be used to
prove
someone's
innocence just as easily as guilt. Sadly this does not hold true
in the
numerous states that refuse to allow people convicted of crimes
access to
DNA testing that might exonerate them," Steinhardt said. "It is
only fair
that criminal defendants be given the opportunity to use DNA
technology
that was not previously available."
The ACLU's testimony is available online at:
http://www.aclu.org/congress/l032300a.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other Recent ACLU News Releases
03-22-00 -- PA Town Ends Fight Over Resident's Display
Of "Butterfly" Artwork on Front Lawn
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n032200e.html
03-22-00 -- Acting on Behalf of Inmates and Local Publishers,
ACLU Challenges Censorship in Colorado Prisons
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n032200d.html
03-22-00 -- In Victory for Free Speech on Campus, High Court OKs
Mandatory
Student Fees
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n032200c.html
03-22-00 -- ACLU Testifies on Campaign Finance; Urges Senate
Committee to
Adopt Full Public Financing
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n032200b.html
03-22-00 -- ACLU Says Increased Security Fees at Grammy Winning
Cuban Band
Concert are Unfair
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n032200f.html
03-22-00 -- Marv Johnson Joins ACLU Washington Office As First
Amendment
Legislative Counsel
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n032200a.html
03-21-00 -- Facing NYCLU Lawsuit, Town Agrees to Restore Free
Speech Rights
for Police Officers
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n032100b.html
03-21-00 -- In Groundbreaking Settlement, California Must
Guarantee Equal
Education for All
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n032100a.html
03-17-00 -- In Victory for "Underground" Speech, NYC Transit
Officials Back
Down on Subway Advertisement Ban
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n031700a.html
03-16-00 -- ACLU Applauds Legislation to Prohibit Race-Based
Profiling by
Customs Service
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n031600b.html
03-16-00 -- Unconstitutional Gay Adoption Ban Dies in
Mississippi, Local
Advocates Attribute Victory to Deluge of Support
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n031600a.html
03-15-00 -- ACLU Applauds New Police Accountability Measure
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n031500a.html
03-15-00 -- ACLU Denounces Imperial Police Chief, Renews Call
for
Independent Commission
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n031500b.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ONLINE RESOURCES FROM THE ACLU NATIONAL OFFICE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ACLU Freedom Network Web Page:
http://www.aclu.org
America Online users should check out our live chats, auditorium
events,
very active message boards, and complete news on civil
liberties, at
keyword ACLU.
