vol. 42, no. 8

Volume XLII

No. 8

Francis Heisler, who will receive the ACLU Foundation's Fifth Annual Earl Waeren Civil Tibes

ties Award, with his client and friend, Joan Baez.

`Deprosrammins' church members

November - December 1977

ruled unconstitutional

By Margaret-C. Crosby

Staff Counsel

To approve of temporary custody

orders for religious deprogramming

without procedural due process would

be, "to license kidnapping for the

purpose of thought control,'' according

to a

Appeal ruling in October which

reversed the conservatorship ap-

pointments granted in San Francisco

last March.

Parents of five adult members of the

Unification Church sought custody of

their adult children under California's

conservatorship statute, authorizing

guardianship appointments over any

person "likely to be deceived or im-

posed upon by artful and designing

persons."' Claiming that the Reverend

Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church

had brainwashed their children, the

, parents sought legal

subject the Church members to in-

voluntary deprogramming ``treat-

ment."'

After a celebrated three-week

hearing, Superior Court Judge S. Lee

Vavuris granted the parents' request,

ordered full custodial confinement and

permitted deprogramming. of the

adults. His rationale: "We're talking

about the very essence of life here,

mother, father, and children. There's

nothing closer in our civilization. This is

the essence of civilization... .One of

the reasons that I made this decision, I

could see the love of a parent for his

child, and I don't have to go beyond

that."

Disagreeing with Judge Vavuris'

view that parents gain any special rights.

over adult children, the Court of Appeal

reversed the conservatorship ap-

pointments. The appellate court

landmark California Court of (c)

authority to -

concluded - as the ACLU of Northern

Photo by Irene Gaasch

California had urged in its amicus -

curiae briefs in support of the Church

members in both the trial and appellate

courts - that a finding of mental

incompetence for unorthodox

theological views or practices violated

the First Amendment's guarantee of

religious liberty.

In its 55-page opinion, the Court

further held that even if the Unification

Church were not a religious society, but

a political organization, confinement

. based on membership in the group

would violate the First Amendment's

guarantee of freedom of association.

Additionally, the Court ruled that the

standard justifying custody - that a

person was "`likely to be deceived or

imposed upon by artful and designing

persons'' - was too vague to afford fair

notice. The court stressed the vast

difference between a _ guardian of

property and a conservator with

authority to curb an adult's freedom of

action. Since the parents in this case

obtained the power to imprison their

children - for beneficent. purposes -

continued on page 7 -

-In memoriam-

Ruth Jacobs

The ACLU of Northern California

mourns the loss of a devoted leader

- Ruth Jacobs - who died suddenly

on .Sunday, November 13. A

prominent attorney, Ruth Jacobs

served as Chairperson of the San

Francisco Chapter, as a member of

the Northern California Board of

| Directors, and was associated with.

continued on page 3

On Sunday evening, December 11, 1977, -

The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

of Northern California

invites you to attend the

Fifth Annual

Bill of Rights Day

Celebration

and presentation of the

Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award to

Francis Heisler

a long-time advocate for individual rights who has

championed, during the last half-century, possibly every

significant civil liberties struggle to face this nation.

Joining us on the occasion of the 186th Anniversary of

the Bill of Rights will be friends and clients of

Francis Heisler whose lives reflect a dedication to the

fight for freedom and specifically, to the evening's theme:

"The Right To Dissent"

Joan Baez Although Ms. Baez will be out of

the country, she sends a special

multi-media presentation.

Leonard Levy Vice-President of Amalgamated

Clothing and Textile Workers.

`Roving Editor"' of the Progressive

Magazine.

Jessica Mitford Activist, writer and critic.

Ava Helen Pauling ACLU and human rights activist.

Dr. Linus Pauling Nobel prize winning scientist and

humanist. 2

Judge Richard Silver Superior Court of Monterey and _

former law partner of Francis

Heisler.

Milton Mayer

Mimi Gina and her Medicine Men, a favorite San Fran- -

cisco Jazz Band will entertain at the no-host cocktail

party beginning at 6:30pm. |

Program begins promptly at 8:00pm:

Grand Ballroom

- Sheraton Palace Hotel

New Montgomery and Market Streets.

San Francisco -

$5.00 donation to attend the Celebration

(Please remember, this is not a dinner)

We anticipate a full house! Please make your reserva-

tion today by using the coupon located on the back page

of the ACLU News.

November December 1977

aclu news

LEGAL

Discrimination

case.

settled

In an ACLU lawsuit charging

California State University, Hayward

with violation of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 (Title VII), and denial of due

process and freedom of speech, Dr.

John L. Hodge won an out-of-court

settlement awarding him reinstatement .

and damages of $20,000. The set-

tlement was approved in October by

U.S. District Court Judge os B.

_ Rengrew.

Dr.. Hodge, who i is Black, was denied

tenure in the Philosophy department at

CSU, Hayward in 1973 and was ter-

minated in 1974. He filed his suit

against the University in 1975.

In 1969, Dr. Hodge was hired at

CSU, Hayward specifically to teach

philosophy courses which would relate

to the needs and interests of minority

students. His courses attracted both

_ white and minority students and were

among the most heavily enrolled on the

campus.

ACLU volunteer attorney Robert T.

Fries, who represented Hodge in the

civil rights action, claimed that

California State University had denied

tenure and dismissed Hodge from the

_ faculty because he was Black since

tenure was granted to white faculty

members on the same basis that it was

denied to Hodge.

Dr. Hodge's exercise of free speech,.

in support of black and other Third-

world interests on the campus and

`stelozine,

A civil liberties perspective

Drugging in mental hospitals

By Morton P. Cohen

In the mid-1950's, having

perimented over the years with cures

ranging from torture and immolation

through shock and lobotomy, the

medical profession discovered

chemotherapy as the treatment of

choice for numerous forms of

behavioral disorders commonly known ~

as schizophrenia.

Drugs such as thorazine, prolixin and

known variously as

psychotropics or neuroleptics, and more

elsewhere, was also cited by the ACLU

as illegal grounds for his dismissal, in

violation of the First and Fourteenth

Amendments to the Constitution.

The Court did not consider these

specific charges, but agreed on an out-

of-court compromise and settlement

which provides that Dr. Hodge will be

reinstated for the 1977-78 and 1978-79

academic years and will be reconsidered

for tenure. During the present

academic year he will be on a leave of

absence without pay so that he may

complete a second year of law school at

the University of California, Berkeley.

Dr. Hodge, who received his Ph.D."

from Yale University in Philosophy,

remained active in the United

Professors of California while he was |

unemployed, and served as Chair of the

faculty union's Affirmative Action

Committee.. He is the co-author of

Cultural Bases of Racism and Group

Oppression published in 1975.

- ders,"

whereby

exerted is unknown.'' Whatever the

commonly as "major tranquilizers''

(drugs such as Valium being the

`minor'' tranquilizers) soon

revolutionized the psychiatric

profession and eased the frustrations of

psychiatrists in dealing with the rages

and bizarre behavior of some of their

patients.

As to the many people who ingest

_ psychotropics, the result may be the -

reduction of delusions, hallucinations,

social withdrawal and similar problems.

The Physician's Desk Reference,

describing prolixin as ".. . indicated in

the management of psychotic disor-

also says "the mechanism

its therapeutic action is

reason, the psychotropics are generally

considered to be responsible for massive

reductions in institutionalizing those

thought to be mentally ill. For example,

in California, the average state mental

hospital stay in 1950 was 265 days,

while in 1975 it was 17 days.

Given this euphoric state, the

seeming return of freedom and health

to an otherwise troubled and difficult

part of our human family, what possible

rationale could there be for intervention

by the ACLU? Perhaps the story is best

told by those who have suffered through

the effects of the psychotropics. Mark

Vonnegut, in Eden Express wrote:

Morton Cohen, a Professor at Golden Gate

University School of Law, devotes much of his

time operating a constitutional law clinic through

the ACLU. Cohen specializes in health law prob-

lems.

much

"you

"While I very likely owe my life to

Thorazine, I doubt if I will ever develop

affection for it or similar

tranquilizers. They act very quickly and

are invaluable in many situations, but

have numerous unpleasant side effects.

Thorazine makes you groggy, lowers

your blood pressure, making you dizzy

and faint when you stand up too

quickly. If you go out in the sun your

skin gets red and hurts like hell. It

makes muscles rigid and twitchy.

"The side effects were bad enough,

but I liked what the drug was supposed - ,

to do even less. It's supposed to keep

calm, dull, uninterested and

uninteresting. No doctor or nurse ever

came out and said so in so many words,

but what it was was an antihero drug.

Dale kept saying to me, `You mustn't

try to be a hero.' Thorazine made

heroics impossible.

"What the drug ts supposed to do is

keep away hallucinations. What I think

it does it just fog up your mind so badly

you don't notice the hallucinations or

much else."

In testifying before a Subcommittee

of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, _

in 1975, a former patient named Janet

Gotkin testified eloquently as to the

reasons why psychotropics may do

nothing more than assist in the

reduction of institutionalization by

massively tranquilizing its recipients.

As Ms. Gotkin said:

"In all the year I took these drugs

continued on page 7

By Amitai Schwartz

Legal Director

Northern California Police Practices Project

Revelations concerning federal government records

- ranging from files kept on the ACLU to occupational safety

information - occur on nearly a daily basis as a result of the

Federal Freedom of Information Act. In the meantime, a

comprehensive set of statutes, which govern the public's access

- to information held by state and local agencies, has existed for

almost ten years - and yet very little use has been made of the

California counterpart to the FOIA, known as the Public

Records Act.

The fact of the matter is that each of us has, in the

California Legislature's words, a ``fundamental and necessary

right'' to information concerning the conduct of the people's

business. But the Act is seldom used as a vehicle for access to

information in California, and its disclosure requirements are

often ignored by government bureaucrats.

The Public Records Act is relatively straightforward. It

covers all state and local government bodies and agencies,

including school districts, local boards, and commissions. The

Act requires that writings containing information relating to

the conduct of the public's business be available for public

inspection during office hours of the agency. In addition, any

person may receive a copy of a public record upon request,

although the agency may charge a fee which cannot exceed its

actual costs of providing the copy. In order words, you can

walk into your local school district office, police department,

city clerk, or other agency and ask to see information prepared

or used by them in the course of making decisions affecting the

public. There are, of course, exceptions to the general rule.

All information must be avilable for inspection and copying

unless it is specifically exempted from disclosure by the terms

of the Act iself, or the agency can otherwise justify withholding

by demonstrating that the public interest in nondisclosure

clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure.

Assuming that the bureaucrat with whom you deal has (a)

heart of the Act and (b) recognizes that it applies to his or her

agency, the bureaucrat may try to claim that the information

you seek is exempt from disclosure. The Public Records Act

puts the burden of justifying nondisclosure on the agency, so

ask for specific reasons, in writing if at all possible.

The list of recognized exemptions to disclosure is fairly long.

Prying open

state public

records

_ RAYMOND BENSON

oe wool} peyulidey

7

It can be found in the Government Code under sections 6254

and 6254.7. Asa general matter the information that is exempt

would invade someone's privacy if disclosed, jeopardize the

safety of law enforcement personnel, is information received in

strict confidence for limited governmental purposes, or is

information which would jeopardize ongoing investigations or

pending litigation, if it were disclosed.

Examples of information that should be disclosed include

police department procedures for investigating citizens'

complaints, routine reports to government agencies, budgetary

information including contracts with private persons, and

various sorts of operating procedures. Current litigation has

not resulted in a definitive interpretation of the scope of the

exemption for police intelligence information.

Often government bureaucrats will apply a good guys versus

bad guys test; that is, they will pick and choose those members

of the public that they believe either deserve the requested

information or else can be trusted with the information.

Judicial interpretation of the Act prohibits this practice. The

Act provides for public disclosure, and does not allow

bureaucrats to pick and choose among members of the general

public. Once information has been given to one person, it must

_ be given to anyone who asks. |

As a general matter it is best to make an informal request to

inspect the records sought. If the request is denied, put it in

writing, addressed to the head of the agency, asking him or her

to justify refusal to make the disclosure. If you desire to receive

copies, offer to pay `"`reasonable'' copying fees in your demand

letter. a

If you are still unsuccessful, then your recourse is to consult

an attorney. The Public Records Act provides specific

procedures for lawsuits under the Act, and provides that -

reasonable attorneys' fees shall be. paid to a person who

prevails under the Act, unless the lawsuit is clearly frivolous, in

which case, fees shall be awarded to the government.

The Public Records Act is found in Government Code

Section 6250 and the sections that follow. A Legislative

Open Records Act, relating to information prepared,

used, or retained by the Legislature is found in Section

9070 and the sections that follow.

Yes, there is a statewide equivalent to the federal Freedom -

of Information Act. It is up to you to make use of it. Good

luck..

November December 1977

aclu news

More than 100 people in San Francisco's Fillmore District swept into "Operation Green Light" net

on November 2.

Rights violated by S.F. police

A massive military-like police sweep

and detention of more than 100

citizens was criticized by the ACLU ina

_ statement issued to the press and public

_ officials following `"`Operation Green

Light'"" in San Francisco's Fillmore

District Wednesday November 2.

ACLU Executive Director David M.

Fishlow and Police Practices Project

`Director Amitai Schwartz characterized

the dragnet detentions of numerous

persons on Haight Street by the San

Francisco Police as an ``obnoxious and

patent violation of constitutional

rights."' :

According to newspaper accounts of

`Operation Green Light," police sealed

off each end of the 500 block of Haight

Street with police cars and motorcycles

at noon on that Wednesday, and

detained for two hours more than 100

individuals who were caught in the net

of undercover cops and a platoon of

uniformed police officers.

`Individuals were herded into the

foyer of an abandoned movie theatre

and each person was methodically

marched in front of a green van, its

windows covered with gauze. Hidden

behind the gauze were several un-

dercover agents who identified suspects

for whom the police obtained 27

Superior Court arrest warrants for

allegedly selling heroin to undercover

officers. Fifty-two suspects were

arrested on various charges.

It took police officers two hours to

free the innocent. people jammed

beneath the theatre marquee.

`There is simply no justification for a

police cordon which sweeps innocent

persons into a net and subjects each of

them to the.harassment and ignominy

which the Fourth Amendement is

designed to prevent. Public officials who

are sworn to uphold the law and obey it

cannot proceed lawlessly in their efforts

to catch criminals.

"The people who founded this nation

fought a revolution, in part, because the

British persistently used dragnet

methods of search and seizure which

were oppressive, and caught innocent

persons in their net without probable

cause to believe that the particular

persons caught had violated the laws,"

according to the ACLU's statement.

Fishlow claims that "Operation

Green Light," like Operation Zebra,

"had its greatest detrimental impact on

innocent black persons."

Three years ago, the Federal Court in

San Francisco found that the in-

discriminate stopping of black men

during Operation Zebra was an un-

-constitutional violation of the Fourth

Amendment. And the May Day arrests

in Washington, D.C., six years ago,

were condemned on similar grounds.

`Apparently when the San Francisco

Police planned Wednesday's drug raid,

they callously disregarded those

lessons,' stated Schwartz. Both the

May Day and Zebra Operation cases

were handled by the ACLU.

The ACLU's critical statement noted

that, "if packages are stolen in a

shopping center, the police cannot stop

every person in order to look for the -

packages. If persons on a public street

sell heroin, the Constitution does not

justify sealing off the street and

detaining every person on the street to

look for the sellers. The police should

have justified their action in con-

nection with each particular person

stopped.on Haight Street.

"Even though this raid was directed

against suspected heroin sellers, the

ACLU finds its implications frightening

for all San Franciscans. The logic of

Wednesday's operation is that the

Police, in their unfettered discretion,

may throw a cordon on any street, or

public place, in their search for

criminals.'? ACLU's message concluded

by declaring that, ``a free society cannot

tolerate such dragnet tactics because

the liberty of each of us is at stake."'

aclu news

8 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, March-April

July-August and November-December

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Warren Saltzman, Chairperson David M. Fishlow, Executive Director

Dorothy Ehrlich, Editor :

Publication Number 018040

814 Mission St. - Ste. 301, San Francisco, California 94103 - 777-4545

Membership $20 and up, of which 50 cents is for a subscription to the aclu news

and S50 cents is for the national ACLU bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.

Loitering ordinance challenged

A Sacramento (c) anti-loitering or-

Guanes: aimed at getting rid of the so-

called "`undesirable element'' at the

local bus station, has been challenged as

unconstitutional in a tax-payers suit

filed in October by the Sacramento

Chapter of the ACLU. -

Enacted seven months ago by the

Sacramento City Council over the

strong opposition of the ACLU chapter,

the ordinance declares that an in-

dividual is "`loitering"' if they remain in

a bus .depot, or other transportation

terminal, without a "`legitimate pur-

pose, or an intention to exercise. a

constitutional right or is causing public

inconvenience and annoyance."

If an individual is charged by a

"reasonable person' with "`loitering"'

they must leave, and not return within

48 hours to the terminal. .

ACLU's law-suit claims that the

ordinance violates an individual's Fifth

Amendment right against self- |

incrimination by forcing one to tell a

police officer the purpose of his or her

presence at a common carrier depot.

Furthermore, the ACLU contends

that the new law is vague, and therefore

denies due process to an individual who

may not be aware that they are

breaking a law and are thus subject to

_ were simply waiting for buses,

claim they were asked to prove their

punishment.-0x00B0 . -.

The class action ait "was filed on

behalf of R. Larry Ferral (Chairperson

_of the Sacramento Valley Chapter), and -

the law firm of Harbarger, Brown and

Waters. Wayne Harbarger is handling

the case as a volunteer attorney on the

ACLU's behalf.

Although no one has been arrested

under the new law, police claim in a

Sacramento Union report that, there

has been `voluntary compliance by

people asked to leave (the bus station) (c)

under threat of arrest."

Since the law was enacted, the ACLU

chapter has received complaints from

_ individuals who were angered by being

asked to leave the bus station when they

and

purpose at the station by showing their

bus tickets to security officers and

police officials.

The class action seeks to have the

ordinance declared unconstitutional

and to have the court prohibit the City

from spending tax-payers. funds to

enforce it.

A hearing in the Superior Court is

anticipated to be scheduled for mid-

December.

Clarence E. Rust - In memoriam

Ernest Besig, executive director of the ACLU of Northern California from 1934

until he retired in 1970, brought to our attention the death of Clarence E. Rust in

September. Mr. Besig's letter to Chairperson Warren Saltzman was so Ou en aes

we introduce it here in memoriam to the late Mr. Rust:

Dear Warren:

I send you the attached

. postcard I received a couple of days ago from

the wife of Clarence E. Rust. I would have sent it to David Fishlow, but I'm sure he

never met Clarence. If my facts are straight, you may have met Clarence at a few

ACLU board meetings before he retired in June or July of 1968.

Clarence Rust served on the board for more than twenty years. When he died he

must have been about 76. I believe he was a classmate of Wayne Collins' in law

school. Clarence practiced law at 5837 San Pablo Ave., Oakland, for many years.

His son, also a lawyer, practices in Sacramento and, in my day, belonged to the

ACLU.

Clarence was among those who handled civil liberties cases before we had a staff

counsel. If you look at the first issues of the ACLU News you will see mention of the

Victor Jewett case in Eureka (academic freedom), the suit of Mary Francis :

Sullivan, a public health nurse, who was the victim of an American Legion

witchhunt, the orange pickers' strike in Santa Ana (see the August, 1936 ACLU

News, p. 3) and during the second World War, he represented many Jehovah's

Witnesses and conscientious objectors.

Clarence did not have a flamboyant style. He was quiet, thoughtful, con- -

scientious and reliable. He had a lurking friendly smile. He was a great hiker and

folk dancer. In politics, he was a Norman Thomas type Socialist and occasionally

campaigned for public office. Most of all, he was a fine human being.

Yours,

Ernie

Enroll a friend in the ACLU as a

special gift for those who care about

the Bill of Rights. An attractive "Bill

of Rights' gift card will be sent from

the ACLU of Northern California

announcing the recipient's new

membership in the ACLU. Members

will of course receive monthly ACLU

publications throughout 1978.

Gift of ACLU Membership to:

Name(s)

Give a eift ae freedom

`Address

City

State Zip

Please clip and returnto: ACLU, |

814 Missior: St., Suite 301, S.F.94103.

Gift card should read:

From _

: Address

City

State Zip

Phone:

Basic Membership $20.

Joint Membership $30. |

Enclosed is my check for $

- November December 1977

aclu news

First Amendment

SB 923 (D. Carpenter) - Boat)

Threats

SB 923, authored by Senator Denn

Carpenter, a former FBI agent, makes -

it a felony to utter threats which

`terrorize' another, where such threats

are made "`to achieve social or political

goals."

Contrary to clear First Amendment

doctrine, the new act includes no

requirement that the injury threatened

is imminent, nor that the person

making the threat have the present

ability to carry it out.

As a measure which imposes prison

sentences for intemperate language, SB

923 stands as a grave threat to free

speech and open communication of

grievances.

Opposed by ACLU - Signed by

Governor

SB 817 (Presley) and AB 1580 (Ellis) -

Child Pornography

AB 1580 amends current misdemeanor

provisions prohibiting the distribution

of obscene material, making such

distribution a felony if the material

distributed depicts minors performing

specified sex acts.

~ . While the ACLU did not oppose

legislation aimed at cracking down on

those who abuse children in the

production of films and other material,

we opposed those portions of these bills

which were directed at the protected

area of distribution.

SB 817 requires that distributors of

films, photographs and magazines

determine and record the names and

addresses of pefsons from whom the

distributor obtained material in which

minors are depicted performing

specified sex acts. The records of the

.names and addresses must be made

available to peace officers upon

demand.

Aside from its clear violation of

Smith vy. California (that no bookseller

be required to know the content of every

page of material sold), SB 817. in

conjunction with AB 1580 creates a

classic Catch-22: If the bookseller or

film distributor fails to list the names

and addresses of distributors from

whom they obtain material depicting

minors engaged in "`sexual conduct'

they commit a misdemeanor; if the

bookseller does list the names and

addresses, the bookseller has confessed

to commission of a felony - as

prohibited by AB 1580.

The danger inherent in this par-

Base tee os

psa SP,

TS fy

ticular Catch-22 is a real one given the

overbreadth of SB 817's definition of

"sexual conduct", ae includes for

example, `"`simulated... lewd ane

lascivious sexual activity."

Opposed by ACLU - Signed by

Governor.

Krys Kleer

- also

Patients Rights

AB 16 (Alatorre) - Prisoners/Informed

consent to psychoactive drugs

Existing law prohibits the use of

organic therapy, such as electroshock

and psychosurgery on _ prisoners,

without their consent. AB 16 sought to

extend such protections to the use of

anti-psychotic tranquilizers and

psychotropic drugs.

Governor Brown vetoed AB 16 at the (c)

request of the Department of

Corrections.

Supported by ACLU - Vetoed by

Governor

AB 1592 (Alatorre) - Prisoners/

Human Experimentation

AB 1592, which was signed by Governor

Brown, prohibits. the conduct of -

biomedical and behavioral research

upon prisoners without informed

consent.

Though the bill creates a statutory

framework, which may be useful in

bringing litigation, and establishes

legislative intent that prisoners shall not

be used as human guinea pigs, critics

have complained that the bill falls far

short of the guidelines created by the

National Commission for the Protection

of Human Subjects.

Supported by ACLU - Signed by

Governor

AB 1148 (Lanterman) - Temporary -

conservatorships:

Though this measure `moved . very

quietly through the Legislature, it

responds directly to the ``de-

programming" controversy ACLU/

NC faced in the `"`Moonie'' cases.

AB 1148 prohibits a temporary

conservator - one appointed ex parte

- from "`fixing the residence'' at some

place other than the one where the

conservatee resided prior to the filing of

the conservatorship petition, without a

formal hearing before the court at

which the conservatee is represented by

counsel. The temporary conservator is

prohibited from selling or

relinquishing any real or personal

property of the conservatee.

Supported by ACLU - Signed by

Governor

Juveniles/Student

@ Ae

Rights

AB 357 (Dills) - Student Newspapers

Specifically recognizes that public

school students have a right to exercise

freedom of the press in school

publications. However, such freedom is

limited to expression which is not

"obscene, libelous, or slanderous''.

ACLU officially opposed SB 357 on

the grounds that especially as to so-

called `libelous and slanderous"'

materials, the "freedom of the press' so

granted is illusory, and even falls

considerably short of the rights

mandated by recent court decisions.

ACLU opposed - Signed by Governor

AB 530 (Hart) - Student suspensions

Codifies procedural due process

protections articulated by the Supreme

Court, including an opportunity for a

_ Student to have a hearing prior to

suspension. The threat of expulsion or

involuntary transfer to continuation

school entitles the student to more

stringent due process protections: right

to counsel, discovery, and confrontation

and cross-examination - of adverse

witnesses.

Supported by ACLU - Signed by

Sas enOr

Gay Rights

AB 607 (Nestande) - Gay Marriages

Previous law provided that marriage is

a personal relationship arising out of

civil' contract. AB 607 specifically

provides that that contract must be one

between amanandawoman.

Opposed by ACLU - Signed by

Governor

Administrative

Agencies

The ability of citizens in a mass society

to protect their fundamental rights

against the encroachments of an ex-

panding government is heavily affected

by the remedies and procedures af-

forded by statutory law. Three bills this

past session provide a view of how the ~

battle is going.

AB 886 (Maxine Waters) - Judgment

confessions/Welfare benefits

Under current law, no person may be

coerced into accepting civil liability

- without court action as a condition of

receiving personal, family or household

goods or services. Effectively, the law

refuses to recognize a waiver of in-

dividual rights under the civil law

without the certification of an attorney

independently representing the debtor,

and no attorney who wishes to remain

licensed will so certify without some real

benefit accruing to the debtor.

AB 886 would have extended that

same guarantee against

judgment confessions, to

recipients. Governor Brown vetoed AB

886 at the request of the District

Attorneys Association.

Supported by ACLU - Vetoed by

Governor -

saudog, Corypy q Suxnouy

not reached' the

By Brent A. Barnhart

Since the California Legislature is in

the middle of its two-year session, we

"can provide no true wrap-up of civil

liberties legislation. Many critical issues

remain to be dealt with in the 77-78

session. And much of the effort of the

ACLU's California Legislative Office

has been expended on issues that have

Governor's desk.

However, a look at bills signed, and

`bills vetoed by the Governor, does

provide a capsule of how civil liberties

fare in the Brown Administration.

To get a clear picture, we'd caution

members to consider the minor

packages, along with the blockbusters.

1977 is not defined by the death

penalty's reenactment and the revision (c)

- Commission

coerced . regulation, a set of procedures which

welfare

of determinate sentencing alone. .

AB 1310 (Berman) - Attorney fees for

public interest litigation

Shortly before the California Supreme

Court granted attorneys fees to the

successful plaintiffs in Serrano v. Priest,

Governor Brown signed AB 1310 which

empowers a court to award attorneys'

fees to a successful party in an action

which has resulted in the enforcement

of an important right ote the

public interest.

The court must find, in addition to

"a substantial public benefit," that

"the necessity and financial burden of

private enforcement are such as to

make the award appropriate."

Supported by ACLU - a by

Governor

SCA 25 (Holmdahl) - Administrative

agencies /Constitutionality of statutes -

SCA 25 provides that no administrative

agency shall declare a statute unen-

forceable on the grounds that it is

unconstitutional. As helpful as such a.

provision may seem in support of the

doctrine of separation of powers, if the

public approves SCA 25, administrators

will be able to refuse to consider

whether their action or inaction violates

the constitutional rights of citizens -

on the solemn ground that the State

Constitution forbids them from making

such considerations!

Opposed by ACLU - To appear on

June ballot

isguBly Wood} pajuliday

Political Reform

AB. 453 (Antonovich) - Campaign

contributions disclosure exemptions

In accordance with a U.S. Supreme

Court decision Buckley v. Valeo,

California's Fair Political Practices

(FPPC) created, by

allow petitioning parties to secure

exemption from California's campaign

contributions disclosure provision

where such persons prove they are likely

to suffer "substantial harassment'

from government or private persons. In

`CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE STATE

Piperteth 2 pmeth Vi Ni Koen pha emia Nk: gaan Pees Gos

CP od ee | D0x2122est

E CAPITOL - A 1977 REVIEW

Legislative Hoe cieave

Much of the legislature's action was _

the direct result of the Governor's

conscious decision that 1977 be the

"Year of the Cop'. That decision

resulted not only in the undoing of the

determinate sentencing system created

by SB 42; it also created an atmosphere

in which all legislators became aware

that the fate of their criminal justice

legislation lay with ``satisfying the cop."

With critical packages dealing with

mentally disordered violent offenders .

(MDVO), search and seizure, electronic

eavesdropping, and elimination of

misdemeanor jury trials facing us in

1978, the ``out-copping'' of Evelle

Younger and Ed Davis poses a serious

threat to Californians' civil liberties.

`two separate instances, the FPPC

granted exemptions to the Communist

Labor Party and the Socialist Workers

Party, after determining at open

hearings that contributors would suffer

substantial harassment if their names

were disclosed.

AB 453 officially condemns those

exemption procedures and forbids the

- FPPC from exempting anyone or any

party in the future.

Opposed by a - Signed by

Governor

Privacy

Legislation bearing a "`privacy" label

may not in fact protect individuals from

the collection, maintenance and

dissemination of personal information.

Indeed, privacy legislation imperfectly

drawn may constitute a step backwards,

providing citizens. with less protection

_ than the bare constitutional right we

enjoy under the California Constitution.

Privacy may also serve as a sheep's

cloak to government secrecy: refusal to

disclose information which should be

public, and restricting the flow of in-

formation solely to the elect. 1977 saw

some minor gains, and at least one

- major privacy disappointment.

SB 170 (Roberti) - Information

Practices Act

An omnibus privacy measure dealing

with all personal information main-

tained by state government, the bill

restricts the disclosure of personal

information, requires an accounting of

particular disclosures, provides for

access by individuals to personal in-

formation about themselves, and

provides specific remedies when

agencies violate the act's express

provisions.

' Unfortunately, SB 170 could as well

be named an "Official Secret Act''

because it declares, as a matter of

legislative policy, that certain in-

formation is ``nonpersonal' - and

therefore essentially outside the

protections of the act. Included in the

definition of ``nonpersonal in-

formation" are records maintained by

law enforcement agencies for general

investigatory and intelligence purposes.

Opposed, in part, ae ACLU - Signed

by Governor

SB 580 (Roberti) - Employee Records

An earlier act by Senator Roberti

created an absolute right of all private

employees to gain access to the em-

ployee files maintained by their em-

ployers. AB 580 enhanced the existing

law by adding the additional

requirement that an employee's per-

sonnel files be maintained at the site

where the employee works, or that such

- files at least be made available within a

reasonable time after the employee

requests it.

Supported by ACLU - Signed by

Governor

AB 681 (Antonovich) -

Numbers

The use of social security numbers as a

Social Security

universal identifier creates the

frightening spector of cradle-to-grave

dossiers maintained in a central data

bank. Prying bureaucratic fingers off

that useful identifier now appears to be

an almost impossible task.

However, AB 681 brings some

_ brightness to an otherwise dark picture,

eliminating statutory authority for the

use of social security numbers where it

never should have existed: on birth

certificates and voter registration

records.

Supported by ACLU - Signed by

Governor

SB 888 (Robbins) - Examination and

Treatment of Rape Victims

In 1975 SB 555 supported by ACLU

and passed by the Legislature required

that professional personnel trained in

the examination of victims of rape be

available at all county hospitals in large

counties. That bill also required that

standard forms be used to preserve

evidence and examination results for

purpose of prosecution.

However, over ACLU's objection, all

such forms went automatically to the

district attorney and _ investigating

officers, regardless of the wishes of the

victim.

SB 888 corrects the automatic

disclosure of medical data disclosed by

examination of the victim, and declares

that such information is subject to the

same principles of confidentiality

applicable to any other medical record.

Supported by ACLU - Signed by

Governor

`SB 898 (Wilson) - Defense access to

criminal records

Under existing law, defense attorneys

may get access to RAP sheets on wit-

nesses in a criminal trial, but only

through rather cumbersome discovery

procedures, requiring a court hearing

and a specific court ruling. Under ~

current law, all peace _ officers,

prosecutors, probation and parole

officers, health officers, officers of cities

and counties and special districts have

access to RAP sheets. The Attorney

General is also empowered to provide

RAP sheets to public utilities, peace

officers of other states and the United

Krys Kleer

States, and to peace officers of another

country, upon proof of a compelling

need.

SB 898 would have entitled defense

attorneys to have access to RAP sheets

upon filing an affidavit swearing that

the information was genuinely needed

for investigation and preparation of a

defense, and declaring that the in-

formation would not be disclosed to any

unauthorized person.

Governor Brown, at the request of

the District Attorneys Association,

vetoed SB 898, expressing his devotion

- to individual privacy. Apparently RAP

sheet information is safe in the hands of

Idi Amin or the KGB, but not in the

hands of State Public Defender Paul

Halvonik or death row attorney

Anthony Amsterdam.

Supported by ACLU - Vetoed by

Governor

Criminal Justice

SB 155 (Deukmejian) - Death Penalty

Amends current law. providing for the

infliction of death in the case of persons

convicted of certain first degree

murders, by providing after the finding

of guilty, for consideration by the trier

of fact of certain mitigating cir-

cumstances in a separate proceeding.

After' hearing the evidence in

aggravation and mitigation, the trier of

fact determines whether the defendant.

shall suffer death or life without

possibility of parole. :

Opposed by ACLU - Governor's veto

November December 1977

aclu news

Krys Kleer

AB 476 (Boatwright) - Determinate

Sentencing,

At the eleventh hour of the '75-'76

Legislative Session, the California

Legislature abolished the 60-year- -old

indeterminate sentencing system, and

enacted a system designed to bring

uniformity, determinancy and

proportionality to prison sentences.

Persons convicted of crimes carrying

prison sentences would be apprised, at

the time of sentencing, how long they

would spend there. Persons convicted of

the same crime would do the same time.

But for political reasons discussed

extensively in previous legislative

- columns, Governor Brown decided to.

undo his own package. AB 476 was

successively: ``a technical cleanup bill,"'

a "`tough-on-crime bill,' and a

`moderate consensus bill,' depending

upon the particular time and the

particular constitutency addressed.

_ Likely time-served was dramatically

raised, discretion in sentencing and

review functions was expanded to the

point where "uniformity" is a mockery,

and plea-bargaining leverage given to

prosecutors was incredible.

Opposed by ACLU - Signed by

overridden Governor

Unacceptable choices

spark abortion rights action

Without federal funding for state assemblymembers, state

abortions poor women in California,

who depend upon medicaid for

comprehensive medical care, are

precariously close to facing three

unacceptable choices:

They can get a legal abortion at a

private clinic or private hospital.

They can get an illegal abortion i in

a back alley.

They can carry through their un-

wanted pregnancies to term.

Governor Brown has decided to

continue funding abortions, as state

Medi-Cal regulations have always

required, without funds from the

stopped last August due to the Hyde

Amendment.

The abortion issue will be before

the state legislature when it resumes

the 1977-78 session in January. In

the interim it is vitally important for

ACLU members and other in-

dividuals and organizations which

are ``pro-choice'' to contact their

state funding for abortions. Write to

federal government which were

senators and Governor. Brown -

urging them to continue, on a

permanent basis, funding abortions -

for poor women.

Ask your legislators to oppose AB

2063 (Chappie, D-Yuba City), the

current bill which seeks to cut-off

legislators and the Governor at:

State Capitol, Sacramento 95814.

The ACLU has made the right to

choose its number one national

priority for the coming year. Our

legal victories have established the

constitutional right to an abortion

and we must work to see that this

right is not further weakened or

destroyed.

If you wish to participate in the

Northern California Campaign for

Choice please send a note - in-

cluding the names of the legislators

in your district - to the Campaign's

Attention at the ACLU of Northern

California, 814 Mission Street Suite

301, San Francisco 94103.

=

November December 1977

aclu news

the fight.

by David M. Fishlow

Executive Director

Carrying on

The end of the year.

The end of an era?

The San Francisco police seal off a

street and round up everybody in their

net ... all black, of course, but that's.

just a `coincidence.

The U.S. Supreme Court says state

police may stop all long-haired drivers

and search their cars, merely in "the

hope of finding marijuana or other

illicit drugs."

Fulminating hate-mongers like John

Briggs ask the people to pass legislation

allowing dismissal of a teacher who

advocates gay rights in hearing range of

any school employee. No problem

though. The statute would provide for a

public hearing on whether or not a

given teacher is gay. If exonerated,

briefs arguing that the new death

penalty statute should be applied ex

post facto to death-row inmates who

were reprieved when the old statute was

held unconstitutional . . . twice.

SOMEBODY HAS to keep fighting.

Somebody has to keep filing the,

lawsuits.

abortion

Somebody has to fight the

ban for poor women.

Somebody has to be there to get the

parade permits issued and fight the

cops when they use dragnet tactics and

somebody has to educate the public

about the rights of the despised.

Somebody has to resist when the Fair

Political Practices Commission sub-

general, the FPPC, `or other state

agencies."

You do.

Through the American Civil Liberties

Union.

We ask you to do two things at the

end of the year. When your 1978 notice

comes, renew your membership with a

bigger contribution than last year. That

keeps us fighting in Congress and in the

Legislature, and in the U.S. Supreme

Court and in the national media and |

_ The Santa Cruz Independent.

organizing efforts in

California.

And then, second, do a little more.

Help the Northern California ACLU

Foundation do its job in the California

courts. Get yourself a listing in the

program booklet for our Fifth Annual

Bill of Rights Day Celebration. (Fran

Strauss can tell you how. Call her at

777-4545 in S.F.)

Do those two things, and then come

celebrate with us on December 11.

Honor Francis Heisler. Honor freedom.

Bring a friend.

lobbying

poenas, for a "`routine audit," private - Boy, will you feel goooood!

that's that... No danger there. citizens' personal appointment books, And we'll be able to keep doing the

The attorney general of California checkbooks, and all the ACLU's job ... even though it's going to be

hell bent on the governorship - files correspondence with the attorney harder than ever in 1978.

Parade permit uproar in San Jose

A minor rash of incidents involving various right-wing hate

groups have drawn ACLU affiliates back into the battle for

free speech in recent months.

ACLU of Northern California, and our Santa. Clara Valley

Chapter, had their own situation to deal with in early October,

when the National Socialist White People's Party, a tiny group

of ``American Nazis" which normally hangs out in San Fran-

cisco, applied for a permit to use San Jose's St. James park

for a "white workers' rally' on a Saturday afternoon and asked

for police protection.

Though recreation department officials issued the permit as

a matter of course, community surprise and outrage soon had

the city council meeting to consider the issuance of the permit.

On Tuesday night, October 4, the council considered the

permits at the behest of Vice Mayor Susanne Wilson. Literally

in the face of hundreds of jeering spectators who hurled verbal

abuse and threats at Allen Vincent, the Nazi applicant for

the permit, Vice Mayor Wilson asked Vincent why his group

had requested police protection for its rally. Vincent, who has

learned to manipulate others into providing the vehement

opposition which attracts the publicity his Splinter group can-

not otherwise draw, said he "didn't know."

Representatives of the city attorney's office, including

Acting City Attorney Richard K. Karren, told the Council there

was no constitutional basis for denying the permit. The law is

clear, the council was told. Demonstrations, as ``symbolic

speech," are entitled to the protection of the First Amendment.

Government officials may not deny a permit because the ideas

to be advocated might be offensive to some or all segments

of the community. Indeed, municipal authorities are required

to provide protection for the speakers if it appears that other

will attempt to silence them by force.

Nevertheless, the council voted 5-2 to revoke the permits, a

decision which was wildly cheered by spectators, except for

Santa Clara: Valley Chapter ACLU members and a few

others, distinctly in the minority. Speaking against issuance

of the permit, in addition to representatives of Jewish organi-

zations including several rabbis, were an attorney for the

National Lawyers Guild, the NAACP, and two young people's

socialist organizations.

ACLU Executive Director David Fishlow said the following

day, in response to questions from a San Jose News reporter,

that the ACLU believed the First Amendment precluded the

city's denial of the permit, and said the ACLU, through: its

Northern California office and the San Jose chapter, would

pursue the matter.

There followed a two-day spate of telephone negotiations,

with lengthy conversations taking place among several city

council members, lawyers in the city attorney's office, and

citizens concerned about the denial of the permit.

-In what Fishlow called an `extraordinarily responsible act,"

Mayor Janet Gray Hayes and Councilman James Self

announced that they were calling a special meeting to reconsider

the permit vote.

`After careful study of the city attorney's report and after

consultation with the American Civil Liberties Union and other

attorneys, there is no question in our minds that the city is

legally required to grant the permit,'' they declared. ""We do

not condone the Nazi party. They are a despicable and pitiful

group that represents the worst example of hatred the world

has ever seen .... We should not give them a platform -_

and a court challenge of our permit denial would give them

just that."

Joined eventually by Councilman David Runyon, and by

councilmen Larry Pegram and Joe Colla, who had voted to

grant the permit at the first meeting, Mayor Hayes and Self

were able to see the denial overturned. Steadfast in their refusal

to grant the permit were Vice Mayor Susanne Wilson, who jus-

tified her vote by saying that she ` `wanted to know why the (c)

Nazis had requested police protection," and by Councilman

Al Garza who refused to acknowledge any constitutional obli-

gation to grant the permit.

The meeting at which the vote was overturned and the

permit was granted was a stormy one. Santa Clara Valley

Chapter President Tom Ferrito and Northern California Execu-

tive Director Fishlow, each of whom spoke, were jeered at and

booed, as were all who spoke in favor of granting the permit.

Though the meeting was heated, the council chamber jammed

- with 500-600 spectators, there was no violence.

The Nazi tally took place on Saturday, October 8, with a

counter-demonstration taking place in another area of the

park under a permit which the council had also issued, only

Vice Mayor Susanne Wilson objecting.

Fisticuffs erupted, according to press reports, first within

the counter-demonstration as various groups sought to lead it,

and later when a number of people tried to cross the police-

patrolled no-man's-land to reach the Nazi group. Only two or

three of the approximately 15 arrested. were residents of Santa

Clara County.

_ Forty years ago, ACLU was asked to explain its defense

of free speech for Nazis. In a 1937 ACLU pamphlet, this was,

in part, the response:

The Union makes no special-issue of defense for Nazis.

Instances of denial of their rights are few. The time we put

on it is slight. We defend Nazis' rights upon the same prin-

ciple which governs our defense of others. But to those of our

friends who would not apply that principle to Nazis, we point

out that practical tactics for getting the rights of others demands

defense even of Nazis' rights.

Solicitation

ordinance

upheld

A challenge to an absolute ban on

any door-to-door solicitation for goods,

including newspaper or book sub-

scriptions, has been rejected, in part, by

the Santa Cruz County Superior Court

in a response to a taxpayers' suit

brought in October by the ACLU on

behalf of the local alternative paper,

Until now distributed free, the in-

dependent weekly newspaper had plans

to solicit subscriptions and distribute

promotional copies of their newspapers

directly to Santa Cruz residents in an

effort to develop subscription revenues

to expand their format and coverage.

Staff members George Stavis, Travis

Cheer and Neil Smyth had requested

permission from the Santa Cruz City

Attorney to begin their door-to-door

campaign last May, and were informed

that their plans were illegal, due to the

local ordinance's flat prohibition of any

solicitation for goods, including

``newspapers, books, pictures,

periodicals and magazines."

The ACLU's legal action on their

behalf, handled by Santa Cruz

cooperating attorneys Jack Jacobson

and Kenneth Margolis, claims that the

ordinance is a constitutionally over-

broad restriction, and has a chilling

effect on freedom of expression and iG

press.

Since the ordinance is susceptible to

arbitrary and erratic enforcement,

ACLU attorneys assert that it "creates a

fertile breeding ground for police,

prosecutors and the courts to

discriminate against unpopular

messages and viewpoints, in violation of

equal protection of the law."'

On November 2, Judge Harry Brauer

ruled against the ACLU's charge that

by denying the alternative paper the

right to solicit subscriptions to their

newspaper, the Santa Cruz ordinance

violated the First Amendment, and.

found that the ordinance's free speech

limitation was permissible because it

protected the right to privacy.

In making the decision to challenge

the ordinance, the ACLU's Board of

Directors also considered the conflict,

which the Court raised, between the

privacy rights of home owners being

protected by such an ordinance, versus

the ability for the free press to reach the

public.

Recognizing that `commercial

speech" can be regulated to a degree,

the Board determined that there is a

trend toward narrowing the areas in

which speech can be expressed and that

the ability of people to reach others by

traditional First Amendment means

has all too often been limited.

The posting of "No Solicitors'' signs

by home owners could protect the

individual privacy interests, without

placing the entire burden for privacy

upon the potential solicitors, the Board

noted during its discussion.

The Santa Cruz Superior Court will

hear arguments regarding the ACLU's

additional claim that the ordinance is

susceptible -to discriminatory en-

forcement at a later hearing, although

they declined: to grant a temporary

restraining order enjoining the city

from spending taxpayers funds to

enforce the current statute.

November December 1977 7

; aclu news

Legislative alert

to stop busing ban

In the wake of recent state court

decisions which have ordered several

racially segregated school districts to

integrate their schools by reasonably

feasible means, a Senate Constitutional

Amendment has been introduced which

proposes to stop all busing suggested by

the courts as one part of an overall

school integration program.

Los Angeles State Senator Alan

`Robbins introduced the legislation last

summer in the current 1977-78 session

-. in an attempt to frustrate the planned

peaceful integration of the Schools in

his Los Angeles district, mandated by

the State Supreme Court as a result of

litigation brought by the ACLU of

Southern California.

The State Supreme Court, in June

1976, based upon the

Angeles Unified School District, that

racially segregated schools deprive

children of an equal educational op-

portunity and that segregation must be

remedied regardless of its cause. The

court leaves the methods to reach this

goal up to the discretion of the local

= California

_ Constitution, ruled in Crawford v. Los

School board.

In contrast, based upon the Federal

constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court

has ruled that busing need be used by

school districts only if the segregation of

its students exists as a result of specific

state action.

Senate Constitutional -Amendment

. 48 would have this more narrow federal (c)

court standard apply in California by

changing the state constitution to

provide that state or local public

education agencies need do no more in

the area of school desegregation than

the U.S. Supreme Court orders as

minimally required by the _ federal

constitution.

SCA 48 was approved by the State

Senate in a 27-10 vote taken last

August.

It will go before the Assembly

Judiciary Committee when the

Legislature resumes the 1977-78 session

next January. A Constitutional

Amendment, if approved by 2/3 of both

Houses, is brought before the voters as

a ballot measure at the following

general election.

SCA 48:

e Will change the California Constitution for a current political issue, setting

dangerous precedent for the erosion of other freedoms.

e Will lead to a delay in desegregation and increase costs to taxpayers.

e Will not stop mandatory busing in California.

e Takes away established rights of children to an equal educational opportunity.

e Is premature, since the California Supreme Court has never ordered mandatary

busing.

SCA 48 has passed the State Senate and will be heard in January, 1978, in the (c)

Assembly Judiciary Committee. ACLU members are urged to write, call or visit the

Northern California members of the Judiciary Committee and urge their NO vote

on SCA 48.

~ John J. Miller (Chairman) Alameda (D)

Kenneth L. Maddy Madera, Mariposa, and Fresno (R)

Alister McAlister Santa Clara (D)

Deprogr ming - outlined in the civil commitment -

continued from page |

the law permitting confinement must

satisfy the due process standards of -

certainty demanded of criminal

statutes.

Holding that the probate con-

servatorship law was too vague to satisfy _

due process, the court observed: `"`In an

age of subliminal advertising, television

exposure, and psychological

salesmanships, everyone is exposed to

artful and designing persons at every

turn. It is impossible to measure the

`degree of likelihood that some will

succumb. In the field of beliefs, and

particularly religious tenets, it is dif-

ficult, if not impossible, to establish a

universal truth against which deceit and

imposition can be measured."

Finally, the Court ruled that the

lavish expert testimony of `coercive

persuasion'"' was insufficient as a matter

of law to justify confinement of the

adults. The court held that mental

impairment could not be established by

evidence of departure from con-

ventional living styles - the Church

members' spartan regime, long working

hours and indifference to current events

- but required proof of inability to

obtain food, clothing and shelter. And,

ruled the' court, the need for con-

finement must be established by

compliance with the procedural

protections - for example, trial by jury

_ religious

-Appeal's

statues, not the abbreviated hearings

authorized by the probate code. `"`Todo

less,'' noted the court, "`is to license

kidnapping for the purpose of thought

control."

Although snatching members of

unconventional religious organizations |

has become a_ highly profitable

nationwide industry, the constitutional

questions raised by deprogramming

have eluded judicial resolution to date

because church members often recant

before a legal challenge can reach an

appellate court. Moreover, many

adherents subjected to

deprogramming, while abhorring the

ordeal, are reluctant to sue their

parents. Thus the California Court of

opinion is a landmark

decision as the only legal precedent in

the country.

Of the five original Moon followers,

four left the Unification Church before

the appellate court decision. Parents of

the remaining member, John Hovard,

have requested reconsideration by the

Court of Appeal. In the parents'

petition for rehearing they berate the

Court for shedding ``alligator tears''

over religious liberty, and repeated the

claim that there exists no freedom of

thought within the regimented

Unification Church. If the parent's

petition is denied, they plan to appeal to

the California Supreme Court.

"movie: I could not focus my blurred

death.

Drugging

_ continued from page 2

never, once, did they in any way help me

to solve my problems or come in touch

with my feelings. Quite the contrary, I .

never had to face any problems because

they were all called "symptoms" and I

was given drugs to deal with them. I

became alientated from my self, my

thoughts, my life, a stranger in the

normal world, a prisoner of drugs and

psychiatric mystification, unable to

survive anywhere but in a mental

hospital. The anxieties and fears I had

lay encased in a thorazine cocoon and

my body, heavy as a bear's lumbered

and lurched as I tried to maneuver the

curves of the outside world.

"My tongue was so fuzzy, so thick, I

could barely speak. Always I needed

water and even with it my loose tongue

often could not shape the words. It was

so hard to think, the effort was so great;

more often than not I would fall into a

stupor of not caring or I would go to

sleep. In eight years I did not read an_-

entire book, a newspaper, or see a whole

eyes to read and I always fell asleep at a

film. People's voices came through

filtered, strange. They could not

penetrate my thorazine fog; and I could

not escape my drug prison.

Thorazine fog is only one of the

effects of the psychotropics. There are

numerous others including the nervous,

constant mannerisms of Parkinson's

Disease, which Janet

psychiatrist called `"dancing legs."' Still

another effect is the inability of the

recipient to stop walking - a constant

restlessness known to many as the

prolixin shuffle. Other effects include

blurred vision, dizziness, faintness,

nausea, pigmentary skin changes, and

at least one permanent effect which is

known to continue after the discon-

tinuance of medication - uo! of

tardine dyskinesia.

TD is a nervous affliction caused by

psychotropics wherein involuntary

movements of the lips, tongue, mouth,

hands and feet occur. There is no

known cure for tardine dyskinesia.

A last effect of the psychotropics is

In a report by the State.

Assembly Office of Research, the

authors indicated a prediction of one

hospital death caused by psychotropics -

for every 406 admissions. Further, in an

affidavit in Superior Court in a suit

regarding regulating psychotropics, the

Associate Deputy Director of Treat-

ment Service for the Department of (c)

Health in speaking of psychotropic

Ruth Jacobs

continued from page 1 |

the ACLU for more than twenty

years.

Her tireless commitment to the

struggle for civil liberties - for

women's rights, for equality and for

| justice - will be sorely missed by her

colleagues, her friends and by the

community.

Ruth Jacobs generously con-

tributed countless hours to the

_Gotkin's |

prescription practices said "`... the

recent investigation of state hospital

deaths indicated that 15 to 20 deaths

may have been related to improper

prescription practices."'

What is known therefore, is that

psychotropic drugs have an enormous,

and often quite harmful, effect on their

recipients.

Another important consideration is

that these recipients invariably have no

say in their treatment, although it may

be quite harmful to them, and that

psychotropics may be used as much for

control of people's minds as_ for

treatment of illness.

A major problem, admitted by many

research psychiatrists, is that no one

presently knows how to predict harm,

either as to errant behavior by the

patient, or as to the effects of the drugs.

The end result is a constant series of

human experiments, wherein people are

involuntarily and massively drugged

into oblivion.

The constitutional aspects of the

involuntary use of psychotropics for

mind control are fairly obvious, par-

ticularly since those involuntarily in-

stitutionalized and drugged are under

California law, presumed _ legally

competent. Is there a First Amendment

right to. freedom of thought? The

answer seems quite clear and has been

so held by the courts which have dealt

` with the subject.

Is there a right of privacy at stake?

Here again, the answer seems clear and

has been so articulated in an opinion by

the California Attorney General. Other (c)

constitutional rights include the

- prohibition against cruel and unusual

treatment, procedural due - process,

institutionalization in the least

restrictive alternative setting and the

right to informed consent as a condition

precedent to interference with the

inviolability of one's body.

The ACLU presently represents a

number of individuals, both patients

and ex-patients who, although never

having been dangerous, either to

themselves or others, nevertheless have

found themselves overwhelmed by

-psychotropic medication. It is to be

hoped that we can help them achieve

some greater involvement in, and

control over their destinies, than is

presently the case.

ACLU, participating on the legal

`committee, the women's rights

committee, the Executive Committee |

of the Board, and as the Union's

Vice-President. She leaves a legacy of

determined leadership. .

Ruth is survived by her husband,

the eminent social commentator

Paul Jacobs.

A memorial service is being held

on Thursday, November 17 at

Temple Emanu-el, Arguello and Lake

Streets, San Francisco, at 4:00 p.m.

November December 1977

aclu news

CHAPTERS

San Mateo

Join ACLU members in the San

Mateo area in honoring a long-time

friend of civil liberties, Rudolph

Lapp, author of Blacks in Gold Rush

California on Wednesday, November

16, at 8:00 pm. Kloss Hall,

Congregational Church, 225 Tilton

Avenue in San Mateo.

Key note speaker ACLU Executive

Director David Fishlow will address

the issue: Is Equal _ Opportunity

Enough?

Refreshments will be served. The

event is being coordinated by local

ACLU supporters Marlene De

Lancie, Emily Skolnick, and Jo Witt.

Berkeley-Albany-

Kensington

Annual Meeting

Tuesday, November 29, 1977

8:00 PM

All Souls Episcopal Church

Spruce and Cedar Streets, Berkeley

Our speaker at the Annual meeting

will be Fred Nervo who. will speak on

the topic "The Civil Rights of

Immigrants: the Problem of Un-

documented Aliens." Mr. Nervo is

an attorney specializing in immigration _

problems and past president of the San

Francisco Chapter of the Immigration

_ and Nationality Lawyers Association.

In addition, at the Annual Meeting

we will count the ballots for the election

of new board members and announce

the winners. We look forward to seeing

many of our chapter members at the

meeting.

Oakland

Richard Criley, director of the

National Committee against Repressive

Legislation and Chairperson of

Monterey Chapter of the ACLU, will

speak at the next general meeting of the.

Oakland Chapter of the ACLU. Mr.

Criley will speak on the campaign

against government spying and

specifically about the federal bills

designed to regulate the FBI and CIA

that are now before Congress. Members

and non-members are invited to attend

this meeting on November 30, 8 pm, in

the meeting room of the Sumitomo

Bank, 20th and Franklin in Oakland.

Monterey

More than 150 ACLU members in

Monterey County joined in honoring

their local "Mr. Civil Liberties,"

Francis Heisler, at a gathering held on

Saturday, October 15 at the Doc

Ricketts' lab, a historical Cannery Row

club. (See picture p. 1.) :

Heisler was honored with the

Monterey Chapter's first Ralph

Atkinson Civil Liberties Award,

dedicated to the late Ralph Atkinson

who served as an ACLU Board member

for nearly twenty years. Mrs. Atkinson _.

presented the award to Francis Heisler

describing him as ``a very dear friend

and a tireless worker."'

Dignitaries who participated in the

afternoon program included Joan Baez,

Monterey Peninsula College President

George Faul, and ACLU Executive

Director David Fishlow.

The Chapter welcomed its en-

thusiastic new slate of officers elected to

serve on their Board of Directors:

Richard Criley, President; Arthur

Carsten, Ben Heller, M.D., Francis

Duveneck, Bettie

Killam, Wynona Nicolai, and Francis

Heisler.

Plans for Chapter action are un-

derway.

Sonoma

We need better communication to

make a difference in our vital struggle

to protect civil rights. If you will

telephone ten people two or three times

a year regarding pending legislation or

important events, acting as a Telephone

Tree Captain, please call June Swan at

546-7711. Twenty people have already

volunteered.

Our annual dinner will be on

December 10, which is Human Rights

Day, at the Commons at Sonoma State

College. We'll have a popular speaker,

an elegant dinner and our art auction.

If you wish to nominate anyone, with

their permission, to the Board of

Directors for 1978,: call the above

number.

Mid-Peninsula

The next scheduled meeting of the

Mid-Peninsula Chapter Board of

Directors is Thursday, December 8,

1977, at 8:00 at the All Saints Episcopal

Church, corner of Hamilton and

Waverly in Palo Alto.

Please send me ___

NAME

Bill of Rights Day Celebration

Ticket Order

tickets at $5 each. I am enclosing an addi-

tional tax-deductible contribution to the ACLU Foundation of I

$ __-_-. Enclosed is my check for$____.

ADDRESS

CITY

e Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94103.

Please make checks payable to ACLU-Foundation; N.C. and mail to 814

[

:

|

7

STATE _ZIP

i

]

j

j Please enclose a self- addressed, `stamped envelope.

ee ee ee ee

~ Local

Griswold, Susan -

San Francisco

At its Annual Meeting on October

16th, at Fireman's Fund Hall, the S.F.

Chapter elected the following new

members to its Board of Directors:

Rosemary Nunez Ackerman, attorney

in the field of Worker's Compensation

and single parents; Bernice Wong

Aston, accounting clerk and member of

the Advisory Council of International |

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,

Professor of Law, Golden Gate Law

School; Leah Garchik, Editorial

Assistant, -writer, free-lance book

reviewer; and Wayne S. Nishioka,

attorney, Small Business Ad-

ministration.

Arthur Brunwasser, Ernest Fleisch-

man, Howard Jones, Nina Lathrop,

Anson Moran, Peggy Sarasohn and

Frances Strauss, incumbents, were

elected to new terms. (Continuing their |

terms on the Board are:. Ed Arnow,

Maxwell Gillette, Lorraine Honig, Ruth

Jacobs, Carol Johnson, Bruce Johnston,

Linda Weiner, Richard Weinstein.)

David Fishlow, the featured speaker,

spoke to the problems of `` Defending

the Unpopular Cause."

The - Chapter's School Project

Committee, under the guidance of

Linda Weiner and Peggy Sarasohn, is

readying a small pilot program, per-

taining to the Bill of Rights, for use in

two S.F. high schools this November.

The program is devised to augment the

current school curriculum. If suc-

cessful, this could develop into a city-

wide project.

THE CHAPTER NEEDS HELP!

HELP! HELP! Because of our limited

financial resources, we can no longer

afford a paid coordinator - and so we

must turn to our membership for Help!

Help! Help! One of you out there must

be aching to do creative civil liberties

work. What better way to serve your

interest in the ACLU. If you can

volunteer to do administrative work for

the Chapter two mornings (or two

afternoons) per week, please call Fran

Strauss at the ACLU office - 777-

4545.

Marin

Marin ACLU will host a _ buffet

dinner honoring Robert Ellis Smith,

editor of the Washington D.C. based

PRIVACY JOURNAL, on Wednesday,

December 7 from 5:30 to 7:30 at the

home of Priscilla and Michael Bull, 505

Woodland Road, Kentfield. The dinner

will precede Mr. Ellis' appearance at |

the College of Marin where he will

speak about privacy in the computer

age as part of the ongoing College of

Marin lecture series focusing on the Use

and Abuse of Power.

Reservations for the buffet and

speech can be made by calling 388-8131

or 388-9491 after 6 p.m. Cost for the

buffet and speech will be $7.00. A no- -

host bar will be in operation. Shuttle

bus service from the College of Marin

parking lot at College and ode

Aves. will be available.

Gay Rights

- 100 members of the ACLU Gay

Rights Chapter attended the October

meeting which featured speakers Paul

D. Hardman, Pride Foundation .

_ Chairperson and Donald M. Solomon,

Gay Rights Chapter Legal Committee

Chairperson discussing the Brigg's

Initiative.

Specific

issues related to the

" proposed initiative measure included

1245; Robert K. Calhoun, -.

the use of tax-exempt. church funds

being used to support the anti-gay

proposition in violation of the tax laws

as well as the affront which it presents

to the First Amendment freedoms

guaranteed by the constitution.

In December, the Gay Rights

Chapter will join in the celebration

planned by the ACLU Foundation to

- commemorate the 186th Anniversary of

the Bill of Rights.

Sacramento

The Sacramento Valley Chapter

reports that its October 3rd `Forum on

Bakke' was a tremendous success

drawing over 250 people and national

television. The often heated discussion

which featured Nathaniel Colley, at-

torney and NAACP leader, arguing

against Allan Bakke's claim, and

Attorney James Stevens, a Davis city

Councilperson arguing for Bakke, had

NBC televising the forum from

beginning to end for a special feature.

Yolo County

The Yolo County Chapter will.

sponsor a "`fall social' on Friday,

December 2, 7:30pm at the home of

Tom Vasey in Davis. The event is open

to members and friends of the ACLU

and will feature wine and light refresh-

ments. No admission will be charged,

and it is hoped that many of the less

active members will join the Board of

Directors and special invited guests for

a social evening.

The Chapter sponsored a debate on

the Allan Bakke case Tuesday, October

12 in the King Law School Moot Court

`Room (U.C. Davis). The event took

place the evening before arguments

began in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Davis law professor John Poulos

moderated the event, with Nathaniel

Colley, Sacramento attorney and

NAACP member arguing against, and

Attorney Jim Stevens, Davis City

Councilperson arguing for Bakke.

Members of the Yolo County Board

of Directors this year include: Larry

Garrett, chair; Karen Angel, chapter

delegate to ACLUNC Board; David

Rosenberg, vice-chair; Nadine

Noelting, secretary; Robert Lieber,

treasurer; Julius Young, chair of legal

affairs; Neil Colwell, Katherine

Domeny, Hap Dunning, Pamela Grove,

Gini Hinken, Vince Krockenberg, Rudy |

Lester, Ken Levy, Paul Meyer, Art

Small, Steve Sosnick, Linda Thayer,

Tom Vasey, Philemon Watts and Linda

Yang.

All ACLU activists are urged to attend the mini-conference scheduled for

Saturday, November 19, 1977 at the ACLU offices, 814 Mission Street, Suite 301,

San Francisco.

10:00-2:00 pm Bring a Bag Lunch; Coffee, Tea and Dessert will be served.

What are the problems which your Chapter faces? We'll be looking for solutions -

at this important meeting.