vol. 43, no. 3

Volume XLII

April' 1978

8 Taking some `mit iat ive'

ACLU's Board of Directors, led

jointly by the Equality and Legislative |

Committees, are planning strategy for

campaigns against six anti-civil liber-

tarian measures headed for California' s

November ballot.

Petitions are currently being circu-

lated throughout the state which would

revise California's death penalty law,

attack affirmative action, allow for in-

quisitions into the private sexual |

conduct of school teachers, withdraw

state funds to pay for abortions for poor

`women and restrict the right of farm

workers to organize a union.

According to Mary Dunlap, Chair- (c)

Po of the ACLU's Equality Com-.

ittee and coordinator of the six

working committees, "the groups and

individuals targeted by these initiatives

_ surely have no unified political force of

i

the strength and visibility that char-

acterize the initiatives' supporters."'

"Of first priority, these initiatives

must be defeated,'' Dunlap said. `In

the process, voters need and deserve to

continued on page 3

Annual Chapter /Board Conference

Strategy will be developed for waging civil liberties campaigns in northern

California communities, and priorities for ACLU programs will be ham-

mered out, at the Sixth Annual Chapter/Board Conference to be held this

year at Greenwood Lodge in the Santa Cruz Mountains, April 28-30.

Keynote speaker Dorothy Davidson, Director of the Mountain States

Regional Office of the ACLU, will join ACLU activists, Chapter members |

and members of the Board who gather annually for this event.

The conference represents an opportunity for ACLU members to learn

how the Union can have an impact in fighting against the six initiatives

currently headed for the November ballot. (See story above). Workshops are

scheduled for Saturday to focus on each of the predicted ballot measures.

Participants will work together on Sunday to formulate recommendations

on ACLU priorities for the 1977-78 year. Position papers will be distributed

and discussed regarding what new and old directions ACLU's civil liberties

efforts should take.

`Freedom of thought' on trial

A book of revolutionary writings,

allegedly read by a man charged with

criminal conspiracy, was improperly

admitted into evidence, violating the

- defendant's First Amendment and pri-

vacy rights, according to a request be-

fore the U.S. Court of Appeals. The re-

quest seeks reconsideration of the Ap-

peal Court's decision affirming a con-

spiracy conviction of Portland State

University Professor Frank Stearns Giese.

Giese, a 60-year-old French professor,

was charged with bombing two military

recruitment centers, and of conspiracy

to commit those bombings. In 1974, he

was acquitted of the bombing charges, -

but convicted of conspiracy, with

several young people who had attended

discussion sessions at the Professor's

alternative bookstore in Portland.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,

by a divided vote, affirmed the con-

viction and approved of the introduction

of the disputed evidence - a copy of

From the Movement Toward Revolution,

an anthology edited by H. Bruce

Franklin.

The prosecutor's copy of the book

contained Professor Giese's finger-

prints, as well as fingerprints of the

alleged co-conspirators and 400 other

unidentified persons. There was no evi-

dence that Giese shared Franklin's views

or even that he had ever read the book.

However, over defense objection, the

prosecutor introduced the work into

evidence and compelled Professor Giese

to read an inflammatory and rhetorical

passage calling for violent overthrow of

the existing power structure in America.

In approving of the disputed evidence,

the Court of Appeals panel majority

ruled that the book of revolutionary

thought was properly introduced into

evidence, as it tended to show ``motive,

purpose, design and intent."

ACLU's friend of the court brief

claims that Giese's case raises two cru-

cial civil liberties issues: first, that the

trial court violated a federal rule bar-

ring evidence which would infringe

continued on page 4

Reprinted from Rights!

Court devfiatids

ACLU Records

San Francisco ... ACLU lobbyists

have been ordered by the San Francisco

Superior Court to comply with the State

Franchise Tax Board's subpoena, in

connection with a "routine audit of the

ACLU's lobbying expenditures,"' for an

extremely general and ill- cu list of

records.

The ACLU's refusal to turn over the

records, including items such as

personal checkbooks and personal

appointment calendars of ACLU staff

members, brought the matter to the Su-

perior Court, where Judge Ira Brown

issued an order last month compelling

staff members to produce them.

ACLU advisory counsel Coleman

- Blease is appealing the order.

Proposition Nine, the 1974 ballot

measure which completely rewrote the

law on political campaign financing

and lobbying in California, authorized

the newly-created Fair Political Prac-

tices Commission (FPPC) to monitor

and regulate lobbying activities. The

Franchise Tax Board is required to

conduct "`routine annual audits," of the

information obtained by the FPPC.

According to ACLU's Legislative Ad-

vocate Brent Barnhart, who is one of

the subpoened staff members,

`""ACLU's lobbying records and finan-

cial books are completely in order, and

we don't object to reasonable requests

that we verify our monthly reports. We

refuse, however, as free citizens, to give

a fishing license to a government agency

which allows it to sort through our rec-

ords which affect our clients, ACLU

members and contributors, and make

random inquiry concerning the way we

exercise our freedom of speech."'

While the appeal is being Srepaced

ACLU staff member/defendents have

not turned over any of the records

which the Tax Board auditors

demanded.

: court?

No.3

Board election

in May

Did you ever wonder how the ACLU

chooses the cases which it will take to

How the ACLU decides upon

issues to support or oppose in the

legislature?

How the organization reaches a

decision when civil liberties issues

come in conflict?

Did you ever wish that your vote

would count in those deliberations? |

IT DOES COUNT ... because

you, and all of the other current

ACLU members, `"`in good

standing," elect the Board of Direc-

tors which makes those decisions.

You will. be called upon next

month to choose those directors. The

May issue of the ACLU NEWS will

include your ballot and descriptions

of each of the candidates nominated

to run for the ACLU's Board of

Directors.

You also still have time to

nominate a candidate to the Board

by submitting a petition with the

name of your candidate, signed by

15 current ACLU members. The

petition must be received by the

Board of Directors on or before

May 1, 1978.

The By-Laws, which govern the

election of ACLU Board members,

were revised in 1977 calling for

Board members to be elected by the

`general membership." That's you,

if you have renewed your

membership within the last 12

months. Most members haven't

become acquainted with this election

process yet, and in our first election,

held last year, few members chose to

exercise their right to vote.

In May you will have this

opportunity to vote in our second,

general membership election. Watch .

for your special election issue of the

ACLU NEWS, and be prepared to

cast your ballot.

Discriminatory sex offense challenged

The California Supreme Court has

denied a request to strike down the

State Penal Code's statutory rape clause

_ which the ACLU claimed violates the

rights of juveniles to sexual equality in

_ the criminal justice system.

California's statutory rape law, which

defines unlawful sexual intercourse -as

an act accomplished with a female not

the wife of the perpetrator where the

female is under the age of 18 years,

violated 15-year old Mark D.'s right to

equal protection, according to the

ACLU brief which was before the State

Supreme Court.

Davis plead guilty to statutory rape in

a Juvenile Court proceeding, after his

motion to dismiss the charge because it

violated his equal protection rights was

denied. His Supreme Court appeal

- contended that the statute must be tested

because it treats males and females

differently.

The supposed victim in the case was a

17-year-old female with whom the

young man had consensual sexual

relations. The current law provides for |

only males to be punished for this

offense.

Mark D.'s conviction resulted in a

cgntinued on page 4

an LEGAL

| ses Letters to - Ruling on Banks Easter program

To the Editor:

Although the ACLU has announced |

_ its opposition to Bakke in the case now

before the U.S. Supreme Court, I do

not recall reading the constitutional

grounds for your position. _

As I understand it, U.C. Davis

Medical School set aside a number of

_ places in their freshman class

exclusively for "minority" applicants

Response:

Long before Allan Bakke applied to |

__U.C. Davis Medical School, the issue of |

_ affirmative action was vigorously de-

bated by the ACLU's national Board

and the Northern California Board of

Directors. What emerged from those

lively debates was a 1973 policy

_ resolution which stated that:

"The root concept of the principle of

non-discrimination is that individuals

should be treated individually, in

accordance with their personal merits,

achievements and potential, and not on

the basis of the supposed attributes of

any class or caste with which they may

be_ identified. However, when

discrimination - and particularly

when discrimination in employment

and education - has been long and

widely practiced against a particular

class, it cannot be satisfactorily -

eliminated merely by the prospective

adoption of neutral, `colorblind'

_standards for selection among the

applicants for available jobs or

educational programs. Affirmative

the Editor

who could not otherwise have been

admitted because their academic

qualifications were too low. Does not

this double standard deny equal pro-

tection to "majority" applicants? :

How can reverse discrimination as a

compensation for past discrimination

_ be constitutionally justified?

Alan M. Winslow

_ Pleasanton, California

action is required to overcome the

handicaps' imposed' by _ past

discrimination of this sort; and, at the

present time, affirmative action is

especially demanded to increase the

employment and the educational

opportunities of racial minorities. "'

When the U.S. Supreme Court

decided to hear the Bakke case, the

ACLU submitted a friend of the court

brief on the side of the University of

California, arguing that it is

"generations too late' to insist that

"under no circumstances should we

abide selection process in which race

counts in the calculus. That notion of

neutrality could only serve as a pre-

server of the status quo.

"If the overriding purpose of the

Fourteenth Amendment is . . . to pro-

tect minorities, it would be a cruel irony

for the [Supreme] Court to turn that

shield into a weapon against state

governmental efforts to redress

cumulative racial injustice.""

Telephone tap tested

When Mr. Maco, a telephone

company service employee,

-eavespropped on Thomas Tavernetti's (c)

phone call, he was violating the state

Constitution's privacy guarantee as well

as laws which prohibit the interception

or disclosure of phone conversations.

What he overheard, however, was a

conversation regarding a narcotics

_ transaction. So he listened again, and

after the second conversation he

' brought this information to the police

_ who, based on this tip, obtained a

search warrant and seized evidence

which lead to the arrest of the phone

customer, Mr. Tavernetti. The ACLU

has asked the California Supreme

Court to decide whether the right to

privacy can withstand condoning a

private citizen's violation of the law.

Phone company employees are

allowed, under certain circumstances,

to tap lines. The Tavernetti incident,

however, does not fall within this

narrow exception for necessary service

and maintenance according to the friend

of the court brief prepared by ACLU co-

operating attorney Glen Moss. __

The California Court of Appeal has

refused to suppress this evidence, thus

bringing the matter to the Supreme

Court with the claim that the Court of

Appeal's decision `"`is incompatable

with the broad and expanded

protection of individual privacy

guaranteed by state and federal law. |

The ACLU is asking the state high |

court to order the evidence suppressed.

extradition

California's Governor may refuse a

demand for extradition, according to

the decision of the California Supreme

Court on South Dakota's request that

the Court compel Brown to extradite ~

American Indian Movement leader

Dennis Banks. a

Gov. Brown had deferred action on

the request for more than two years.

Banks was apprehended in San Fran-

cisco in 1976, having fled from South

Dakota while on bail awaiting sen-

_ tencing for an armed riot and assault

conviction.

Brown justified the delay by main-

taining that South Dakota's extra-

dition request was technically deficient,

and that an investigation had to be con-

`ducted to determine whether South

-. Dakota would protect Banks's consti-

tutional rights. as

- The ACLU entered the case on the

side of the Governor as a friend of the

court, supporting his claim to have the

power to exercise discretion in extra-

_ dition proceedings. -

ACLU Advisory Counsel Ephraim

Margolin, and his associate Nicholas

Arguimbau, represented the ACLU in

the Supreme Court action. The Cali-

fornia Supreme Court rendered its deci-

sion on March 20 with Justices Stanley

Mosk and William P. Clark dissenting.

The Court's majority concluded that

`Although that duty (to comply with

extradition demands) may be consi-

dered mandatory in nature .. . in un-

usual cases a potential miscarriage of

justice may call for that discretionary

exercise of `sound judgement.' "'

criticized

ACLU Executive Director David

Fishlow has asked officials of the.

Peralta Community College District

(Alameda County) to explain why

district funds were spent on a purely

religious Easter program, held last

month, in violation of the First Amend- -

ment's separation of Church and State.

The program, held at the Oakland

Auditorium Theater, featured a singing

group from the religious shrine center

of Lourdes, in France, and was entitled

_an "Easter Holy Day Performance."

Two public colleges, Laney and the

College of Alameda, spent an estimated

$3,000 on the event, which the ACLU's

Director claims was in direct conflict

with state and federal law prohibiting

the expenditure of public funds for

religious purposes. .

"While ACLU recognizes that the

religious tradition in music is an

important part of education in that

field, we must protest the clear estab-

lishment of religion represented by the

expenditure of public moneys for the

celebration of a sectarian religious

holiday with a performance quite

outside the music curriculum," Fishlow

said.

"The Constitution guarantees the

right of private groups to celebrate -

religious holidays. Such groups may

rent public facilities at their fair cost for

celebrations, but public agencies them-

selves may not officially celebrate a

religious holiday such as Easter with

programs of a religious nature, nor may

they lend official sanction to such cele-

brations by private groups."

Sex offender registration laws challenged -

Registration laws, established in the 1930's to ``harass

gangsters and racketeers,'' were felt to be "effective because

. . . convictions could be obtained merely by showing (an in-

dividual's), presence within (a) jurisdiction, a criminal record

and failure to register."

The ACLU has asked the California Supreme Court to

throw out one of the last vestiges of the registration law

concept - one which creates a `"`caste of sex offenders' in

violation of the right to due process and equal protection.

Furthermore, ACLU's brief asks the Court to discharge

Thad C. Anders from forever having to register as a sex of-

fender.

Anders, whose suit the ACLU of Northern and Southern

California and the Pride Foundation support as amici curiae

in his appeal before the state high court, was convicted in 1976

of a misdemeanor ``lewd conduct"' offense. A Los Angeles vice

cop peeked into a locked toilet stall and observed him

masturbating.

For this conduct, in a place presumed to be private, Anders

was convicted, sentenced to 24 months summary probation,

fined $300, and ordered to register with the police as a sex

offender within 19 days of any temporary or permanent change

__of residence.

Such registration requirements are meant to protect society

from all recidivists, but are currently almost only applied to sex

offenders, whose crimes, the brief maintains, are largely one-

time events.

Registration has never been required for violent crimes, such

as robbery, assault and burglary, which have a much higher

"repeat'' rate.

ACLU cooperating attorneys who prepared the brief are

Donald C. Knutson, Jerel McCrary and Donald M. Solomon

of Gay Rights Advocates. _

Registration is not a "`trivial" matter, the ACLU and Pride

' argue, but makes "significant inroads into the individual's

i liberty, autonomy, and privacy; it affects his freedom to travel;

and it provides a continuing source of shame and

humiliation."'

Furthermore, when a defendent is convicted of a crime

which is deemed a registerable offense there is no individual

hearing. Registration is mandatory for an irrational list of

offenses, directly conflicting with the right to due process.

One example cited by ACLU which illustrates how the

unreasonable application of the law violates the right to equal

protection is the provision that a person who uses a minor

under 16 to produce a pornographic film is guilty of a felony,

but need not register; yet for the same action, the same person

might be convicted of Section 272 (contributing to the

delinquency of a minor), a misdemeanor which does require

registration.

When the life-long registration requirement is applied to

Penal Code Section 647 (a), which prohibits "lewd or dissolute

conduct in any place open to the public or exposed to public

view,' ACLU argues that the application violates the Eighth

Amendment guarantee against cruel or unusual punishment.

The California Supreme Court has determined that the test

for determining whether punishment is cruel or unusual is

whether the punishment "affronts contemporary standards of -

decency," that is ``the evolving standards of decency that mark

the progress of a maturing society."' a

A minor crime, such as Mr. Ander's charge of lewd or

dissolute conduct, particularly when it is compared to other

crimes which are encompassed by the registration act, and the

act's lifetime degrading registration requirement intended to

protect the public, when Mr. Anders's crime does not affect

the public, is, "harsh, irrational, and excessive," according to

the ACLU. :

"In short, the type of crime which often results in

registration as a sex offender consists of little more than a

gesture, an invitation of sexual favor, or, as in the (Anders)

case, conduct labeled `lewd' by a snooping vice officer," in a

situation where Anders believed his privacy was protected.

LEGISLATIVE

Prying U.C.'s files open

By Brent A. Barnhart Legislative Representative

Legislation permitting all employees

of the University of California access

" to their personnel files is again alive and

well in Sacramento, with the in-

troduction of SB 251 (Roberti, D- Los

_ Angeles).

Since 1975, the ACLU has been

embroiled in an attempt to push

through an effective omnibus privacy

bill. The major contender was SB 852,

carried by then-Senator

Moscone. At the heart. of the con-

_ troversy in the unsuccessful campaign

for SB 852 was the University of .

California's personnel files issue. That

privacy campaign ended, however, with

the Governor's veto of the 1975 om-

nibus privacy bill, and his veto of its

~ successor in 1976, putting the personnel

file issue to rest - temporarily.

_. In 1977, the Governor finally signed

the Information Practices Act (SB 170),

which did not address the issue of the

University's files.

_ The new bill, SB 251, introduced in

1977, has reopened the wounds suffered

by both privacy and academic freedom

" proponents during those vigorous

skirmishes. SB 251 provides that every

employee of the University of California

shall have access to all reports,

documents, correspondence, and all

other material pertaining to that

employee, including teaching

evaluations and preemployment uae

of reference.

The insistence that individuals have

access to information about themselves

which affects their lives and futures.

accords directly with ACLU policy.

Accordingly, ACLU has lent its support

to SB 251, and to the original sponsors

of the bill, the American Federation of

Teachers.

However, the University maintains

that such an access provision destroys

the faculty's peer review system which is

"cornerstone of academic. excellence."

As one ACLU member, also a tenured

UC faculty member, pointed out to me

in a recent letter:

Whatever the merits and

demerits of the University's

personnel system, it does succeed

in elici:ing views of peers about |

colleagues' performances. If a -

system were installed that

assumed that any professor would

have access to his file, one can be

certain that candid assessment

will cease. There are few people

who like to go around making a lot

of personal enemies.

In 1975, the Legislature had no-

patience with the University's position.

George

persons. Most legislators feel that if the

disclosure provisions of Prop. 9 are -

good enough for them, then academia

shouldn't cringe from a little sunlight.

. And legislators don't appear to have

changed their attitude in 1978.

Prospects for SB 251 look fairly good.

Having cleared the Senate, the bill

presently awaits a hearing before the

Assembly Judiciary Committee. __

Though SB 251 will probably succeed

with or without ACLU support, it does

seem appropriate at least to reflect

whether ACLU's position is the correct

one. It's a debatable practice for

lawyers and politicians to baldly impose

general "policy positions" on systems

and pecular customs with which they're

not directly familiar.

Furthermore, the ACLU has

historically been very concerned about

academic freedom, and has argued very

_ convincingly in many court cases that

- government should not be allowed to

intrude heavy-handedly into academic

operations. But after three years', of

weighing the ``academic freedom"

argument against the "access of public

agency files" issue, it is clear that

ACLU must support SB 251.

There is simply no room for secret

dossiers within an educational system

that professes freedom of thought,

discussion and publication. While the

peer review system is no doubt con-

ducted in good faith in most instances,

just as with all human institutions,

without appropriate checks and

balances it is subject to abuses; and the

peer review system's very secrecy

precludes both awareness and check on

such abuse..

The constitutional `right to con-

frontation of accusers should be ac-

corded respect and influence in ad-

ministrative and personnel matters, as

well as in the criminal law. Certainly

livelihood and freedom of academic

thought are comparable in -con-

stitutional dimension to freedom from

confinement. Even if privacy and First

Amendment considerations did not

compel ACLU support of SB 251,

considerations of due process would.

We have seen the danger that the

existence. of secret files and anonymous

comment pose in other areas of society.

Those dangers are no less virulent

within the academic community.

Why does ACLU defend

free speech for racists

and totalitarians?

"known ACLU

you've probably been

If you are a

member,"'

_in the last few months. You may (1)

make every effort to avoid the topic,

_ or you might (2) have a quick answer

that satisfies most inquiries or

perhaps you (3) heave a weary sigh

and embark on yet another

challenging First Amendment

debate. :

In any case, in depth answers are

now available in a new ACLU

brochure. It is concise, well-written,

and should prove useful to our

supporters.

To request a copy or copies of

"Why the ACLU Defends Free

Speech for Racists and

Totalitarians," write to: ACLU, 814

Mission Street, Suite 301, San

Francisco 94103, or call (415) 777-

4545. We will send it for free, but a

_ asked this question more than once |

- Politicians have little if any privacy in donation would help!

the remarks they make about other.

aclu news.

8 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, June-July,

August-September 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 50 cents is for the national ACLU bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.

Initiatives |

continued from page I

be educated concerning the dangerous

civil liberties consequences of each, or

the next wave or repressive, reactionary

laws will be just a matter of time."

Committees being organized by

ACLU. Board members on each

initiative are preparing materials and

working to set goals to fight back in the

uphill battle predicted for this summer

and fall. Whether all six measures will

qualify for the ballot will not be known.

until May.

Many ACLU members have already

responded to requests for campaign

action which have appeared in the

ACLU News. Now the groundwork is

being laid for those campaigns and the

`active participation of ACLU members

will be critical to these efforts.

ACLU's work will be cut out for us,

as the initiatives described below

indicate.

Atmesa. Action: Would ban the

creation or continuance of any

affirmative action programs in Califor-

nia - in education, employment, or for

government contracts. Programs which

seek to redress centuries of race and sex

discrimination.

Buege Initiative: allows for

inquisitions into the private sexual con-

duct of public school teachers, or for

_ teachers who may advocate on behalf of

the rights of gay people. After public

hearings are held regarding those

suspected members of the teaching

profession, it would allow for. their

firing.

April 1978

aclu news

Action Alert

' The campaign for abortion rights

for poor women faces a tough battle

in the legislature. Proponents of the |

right to choose must secure passage

of a $35 million budget item in the

state Medi-Cal budget by a 2/3

majority vote in both houses.

_ Write to your Assemblymember,

to your Senator and to the Governor

today, urging them to support public.

funding of abortions. Your letter of

`support is critical - no vote can be

taken for granted. (Address all /|

correspondence to: State Capitol,

Sacraments, CA 95814)

_ Death Penalty,"

budget item which would allow for poor

women to exercise their constitutional

right to choose an abortion, the voters

Cieetes for Choice: If the (c)

Legislature approves of the $35 million -

will be asked to take that right away.

This measure would force poor women,

who depend upon Medi-Cal for all

health care, to either bring unwanted

pregnancies to term (the state will still

pay for childbirth and sterilization), or

to choose to have an illegal, dangerous

abortion.at a price they can afford.

Death Penalty: The new death

penalty law (SB 155, approved by the

_ legislature in August, 1977) is currently

in effect in California. However, it is

not considered to be a satisfactory law

by the "Committee for an Effective

chaired by Senator

John Briggs, who are sponsoring an

initiative measure which would add to

the list of crimes punishable by death,

and dilute the due process protections

which are currently available to a

defendant facing an execution.

Eqns Educational Opportunities:

The "Nixon" court has ruled that under

the federal constitution, schools which

are segregated, due to `segregated |

neighborhoods, need not desegregate.

The California Supreme Court has

ruled that our state constitution's equal

protection clause requires schools

which are segregated, regardless of the

reason, take reasonably feasable steps

to integrate. An initiative measure

which would allegedly stop ``forced"

busing, would change the California

Constitution's equal protection clause,

"in matters having to do with school

desegregation,"

more restrictive federal equal protec-

tion Standards

Fun workers right to organize: A

measure aimed at limiting the access

which farm worker union organizers

currently have to speak to workers

about joining a union. /

62e ==

to conform with the.

Sign up today to participate in campaigns against these six dangerous measures, _

currently being circulated for inclusion on the November ballot.

Can we count on you to help mobilize support for civil liberties?

NAME

ADDRESS.

PHONE (day)

(eve)

Your legislators: Assemblymember:

State Senator:

-_____; Representative in Congress:

Please fill out, clip and return this form to the attention of the Equality Committee, ACLU, 814

Mission Street, Suite 301, San Francisco 94103.

ee ee ee

April 1978 (c)

aclu news

CHAPTERS

Berkeley-Albany-

Kensington

The Berkeley-Albany-Kensington

Chapter is pleased to announce that

Marshall W. Krause will speak to

interested ACLU members on "`Protect-

ing the First Amendment Rights of Un-

popular Causes [Skokie, Klan, Camp

Pendleton]."" On Sunday, April 16,

1978, commencing at 5:30 p.m., at a

Potluck Dinner. The function will be

held at Dorothy Legarreta's home at 78

El Camino Real, Berkeley, California.

Interested members of all chapters .

are welcome!

Please bring a dish for general -

consumption:

Last names A- H Main dish

I-N Salad or side dish

O-T Dessert

U-Z Wine or other

beverage

e

Gay Rights

San Francisco Municipal Court

Judges Charles Egan Goff, Ollie Marie-

Victoire, and Roy L.: Wonder, all can-

didates for election to the San Francisco

Superior Court, will speak and answer

questions from the floor at a public

meeting of the Gay Rights Chapter on

Wednesday, April 12th, at 7:30 p.m. in

Room B of Hastings College of the Law,

198 McAllister Street, San Francisco.

The Judges' prepared remarks will be

on the topic of ``civil liberties and their

relationship to gay men and lesbians."

The meeting will be chaired by Chapter

Vice President Margaret L. Furnish,

and the program moderator will be

Dorothy M. Ehrlich, Development

Director of the ACLU of Northern

California. -

The meeting is being co-sponsored by

the Gay Law Students Association of

Hastings College of the Law.

Sonoma

Sonoma County Chapter is

considering several new programs to

broaden membership participation and

encourage community feedback. Chief

`among them is to be a telephone

answering service and watchdog

committee to screen calls. -

Sonoma County Chapter has estab-

lished a successful telephone tree to

contact the membership quickly.

Members not already on the tree are

encouraged to send phone numbers to

ACLU-Sonoma County, P.O. Box

- 3244, Santa Rosa, CA 95402.

A recent letter to the Sonoma County

Sheriff from the Chapter Board

ptompted an improvement in the

Sonoma County Jail visitation policy.

An individual who was previously

incarcerated may now visit an inmate in

the Sonoma County Jail.

Mt. Diablo

Mt. Diablo Chapter includes the area

from Orinda east to Antioch and be-

yond, and from Martinez south to San

Ramon. We have over 500 members,

but we don't know who one another are,

with the exception of a small leadership

group.

Given this mutual isolation, what

have we been doing? Well, this past

month, our ACLU telephone hotline

received 27 calls from people who

thought the ACLU might solve some

problem or remedy some injustice;

Board members appeared twice before

the County Board of Supervisors, once

to advocate separation of the officers of

Sheriff and Coroner, and once to -

advocate an advisory commission on |

corrections. We also wrote to Assembly

members advocating continued funding

of medical care for poor women to

include abortions when it is the

woman's choice. :

Now then: supposing there were a

directory sitting by your telephone, with

names, phone numbers, and addresses

of any other local members who desired

to be included in such a directory. Do

you think it would justify its cost in

improved communications? Might we

be able to move more effectively on fast

moving local or national issues? Would

it give you a greater sense of belonging

to something, to know who some of

your fellow-members are? If you knew

that certain of your friends were

publicly-avowed libertarians, would it

give you something else to talk about -

with them next time they call or meet

you? If you were surprised NOT to find

certain others on the list, might you be

inspired to recruit them?

If, for these reasons or others, you

would like to have, and be included in'

such a directory, call 939-2258 (939-

ACLU) and say so, or else drop a line to

ACLU at Suite 200, 1776 Ygnacio

Valley Road, Walnut Creek 94598.

It's important to note two things: if -

you do not respond, your name will not

be included, out of privacy considera-

tions; and if not enough people

respond, the whole project will be

dropped as infeasible.

Therefore, if you do think it's a good

idea, write or call while you're thinking

about it (the phone number goes to a

machine which operates day and night

and takes no weekends or holidays off)

so as to give encouragement.

If you have a special interest in one

particular civil liberties issue, state it

(along with your name, of course) in

your letter or phone call. We will try to

put you in touch with others of like

mind. Suggested categories have been,

Local Police Practices; Local Detention

and ``Correctional'' Facilities;

Women's and other Anti-

Discrimination Issues; and Countering

Right-Wing Pressure for Even-Harsher

Laws as the Answer to the Crime

Problem.

Monterey

The proposed federal criminal code,

S-1437/HR-6869 will be the subject of

the Monterey Chapter's educational

meeting on April 11. The panel of

speakers will include Richard Criley,-

Eugene Miller, Cory Miller, and Steve

Slatkow, City Attorney of Seaside.

Entitled `Will S-1437, HR-6869

REFORM OR DEFORM the Criminal

Justice System?"', the forum discussion

will examine in depth this far-reaching,

700-page statute, which was steamrolled

through the Senate on January 30, and

is now pending before the House of

Representatives.

All Chapter members and friends of

the ACLU are invited to attend:

Tuesday, April 11 at8 PM

Northern California Savings and Loan

7th and Dolores, in Carmel

Refreshments will be served.

The Monterey Chapter will give the

1978 Ralph Atkinson Memorial Civil

Liberties Award to former California

State Supreme Court Chief Justice

Philip Gibson at its Annual Civil

Liberties Celebration in September.

The date and place will be announced

at a later date.

Conference continued from page I

ACLU staff members and volunteer

attorneys will brief the participants on

current litigation and legislative

strategy, a film on free expression will

be shown, and there are plans for enter-

tainment on the exciting weekend

schedule.

Expenses for the weekend, which

includes six meals and accommodations

for Friday and Saturday night at the

mountain retreat, are $54.00. Green-

wood Lodge's facilities include a swim-

ming pool and mountain trails.

For further information or to make

reservations call the ACLU at 777-4545.

April 20 is the reservation deadline.

ACLU members are urged

to take action to stop S. 1437

1) Learn more about S. 1437.

Write or call the ACLU at 814

Mission Street, Suite 301, San Fran-

cisco, 94103, (415) 777-4545, and re-

quest S. 1437 information.

2) Write to your member of the

House and express your opposition

to the current plan to revise the fed-

eral criminal code as embodied in.

S. 1437 or H.R. 6869. (Address:

House Office Building, Washington,

D.C. 20515)

3) Participate in the Coalition

Against S. 1437. Call 777-4545 for

further information.

e

San Francisco

At its February Board Meeting, the

San Francisco Chapter voted to extend

- both organizational and financial

support to the coalition to fight Senate

Bill 1437. Efforts last month centered

on a city-wide meeting held on March

dle

In addition, the Chapter Board

decided to support the proposed city

ordinance on gay rights, which provides

for equal employment and housing

opportunities. -

In a letter to San Francisco Mayor

Moscone, the Board has expressed

disapproval of the firing of a city

employee for leaking information to the

press. The letter stated the Board view

that such ``gag rules' violate free

speech and interfere with the public's

right to know. =

Freedom continued from page |

upon a defendant's constitutional rights

- in this case the right to read and own

books and to privacy of thought - and

second, that the introduction of reading

material plus argument before the jury

that Giese had read it gave the jury

the impression Giese shared Franklin's

ideas. .

`"*A man has thus been forced to take

responsibility for the thoughts of

another," the ACLU concluded.

ACLU's claim is grounded in a 1969

U.S. Supreme Court decision, Stanley

"y. Georgia, which addressed the concept _

of "freedom of thought":

It is now well established that the

Constitution protects the right to re-

ceive information and ideas ... This .

right to receive information and ideas

regardless of their social worth, is fun-

damental to our free society . . . If the

First Amendment means anything, it

means that a State has no business

telling aman, sitting alone in his own

house, what books he may read or what

films he may watch. Our whole con-

stitutional heritage rebels at the

thought of giving government the power

to control men's minds.

_ Peter Sly is representing the ACLU as

a cooperating attorney in the case be-

fore the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit.

Sex offense continued from page 1

transfer from his high school, a prohibi-

tion against his seeing the female com-

panion, and a quasi-criminal violation

still appears on his record, as a result of

his having violated a statute which the

ACLU characterized, in its friend of the

court brief, as "`archaic'' and "`gender--

discriminatory."

ACLU attorneys argued that the

unlawful sexual intercourse statute

assumes a female, unlike a male, under

the age of 18 is incapable of giving in-

formed consent to sexual intercourse.

Thus the law only `"`protects'' females

and only punishes males.

Young people would still be protect-

ed-by a statute prohibiting lewd acts on

children if this law were to have been

struck down.

Trudy Ernst, a Hastings College of

Law student, and ACLU staff counsel

Margaret Crosby, who prepared

ACLU's petition, claimed that the -

unfairness of the statute is illustrated by

the inconsistent use of unlawful sexual

intercourse statutes throughout the

nation. In 47 of the 50 states, Mark D.

would be guilty of no crime against his

victim; in 13 states, the ``victim'' would

be charged with a crime against him.

_ The California Supreme Court's

decision on March 30, rejecting Mark

D.'s request for a hearing leaves

unanswered the question of whether the

`current statutory rape law is consistent

with the constitutional guarantees of

_ equal protection of the law.

NO MORE FREE LUNCH:

The Price of Lobbying Reform -

7:30 p.m. Wednesday, April 25

KPFA Radio-FM 94.1 ay Area)

KFCF Radio-FM 88.1 = (Fresno)

Pick up your phone, dial (415) 848-4425 and

join Commissioner Joseph Remcho of the Fair -

Political Practices Commission, David Fishlow,

Executive Director of the ACLU of Northern

California, and others in a discussion of the

effects of legislation regulating lobbying. Pro-

duced by Adi Gevins, the Civil Liberties Radio

Education Project is funded by the California

Council for the Humanities in Public Policy.