vol. 61, no. 2

NEWSPAPER OF THE AMERICAN Giwit LIBERTIES UNION oF NORTHERN GALIFORNIA

Non-Profit

: Organization

US Postage

PAID

: Permit No. 4424

San Francisco, CA

a f-y a) | a | MarcH/ApRit 1997 No. 2

Government Retreats from Threat |

to MDs On Medical Marijuana

acing pressure from a lawsuit | a realization that their threats of intimida- | tive, untenable and inappropriate," said Dr. | Board Member. "I think that the federal

brought by the ACLU-NC on behalf of | tion to physicians and their interference in Milton Estes, director of San Francisco's | government confused its `war on drugs' with

California physicians, the federal | doctor/patient relationships was destruc- forensic AIDS project and National ACLU | the legitimate medical needs of patients

government retreated from its hard-line with AIDS, cancer and other

position on medical marijuana, no longer : Se chronic diseases. Patients truly

threatening to punish doctors if they dis-

cuss the medical use of marijuana with

their patients.

"For over two months federal officials

have intimidated California physicians

with threats of dire punishment for simply

telling a sick or dying patient that marijua-

na could help them," said Graham Boyd of

Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Berzon, and

Rubin, one of the attorneys representing

the California doctors and patients suing

the government. "On the very day that fed-

eral officials had to explain their policy to a

federal judge, they finally backed down."

Dr. Marcus Conant, one of the nation's

most prominent AIDS physicians and lead

plaintiff in the lawsuit, reacted to the |

announcement by saying, "The White |

House has declared a truce in its war on |

California doctors. We are once again free The letter continues, "No `gag

to practice medicine without fear of DEA ce oe rule' stops physicians from engag-

agents harassing us for simply trying todo | Ann Brick, (left) staff counsel with the ACLU, announced the filing of a federal suit to gain protection __ ing in these discussions."

benefit, in some instances, from

the use of marijuana and they

need to be able to talk to their

physicians about this and any oth-

er related problems," added Dr.

Estes.

In a letter sent to the

California Medical Association on

February 27, the Department of

Health and Human Services and

the Department of Justice state,

"Nothing in federal law prevents a

physician, in the context of a legit-

imate physician-patient relation-

ship, from merely discussing with

a patient the risks and alleged

benefits of the use of marijuana to

relieve pain or alleviate symp-

2 toms."

our jobs." for doctors who recommend marijuana to patients during a press conference at the San Francisco "The Government's change

"It seems to me that the change in posi- | Medical Society with plaintiffs Milton Estes of the San Francisco Forensic AIDS Projectand Virginia in policy is an important victory

tion by the federal government represents | Cafaro of the Conant Medical Group. for the First Amendment and

FA eS ar ere err rs for the rights of patients and

physicians everywhere," said ACLU-NC staff

Court Bans San Quentin's soca green

; claims to be merely "clarifying" its position,

the letter actually constitutes a major

: and e Cc ret E xe Cc U Ci oO ni P ro Cc Gea d U re S reversal. Following passage of California's

: Proposition 215, the Clinton administration

pholding the First Amendment unveiled a harsh policy that threatened to

right to witness California's execu- 66 : + 9 0x00B0 punish doctors who recommend medical

Ue U.S. District Court Judge The Court upheld the media s First marijuana to their patients. According to

Vaughn Walker ruled on February 28, that Amendment right to function in its critical the letter, the government has now aban-

public witnesses - including the media doned its hard-line stance and officials will

-have a constitutionally protected right role as the eyes and ears of the public." permit doctors to inform patients of the

to observe executions. benefits of medical marijuana. The govern-

"The Court has sent a loud and clear ment policy will only penalize a doctor who,

message that the California authorities | ruled that there was no evidence that | The ACLU-NC and the law firm of | instead of providing medical advice, inten-

cannot pull the curtain on executions. | media presence jeopardizes prison security Friedman, Ross and Hersh filed the lawsuit, _ tionally helps a patient obtain marijuana in

The public has a right to have representa- | or the safety of prison personnel and grant- California First Amendment Coalition v. | violation of federal law.

tives independently observe executions, | ed plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. | Continued on page 3 . Continued on page 3

and does not have to rely on government

officials to tell us how they were per-

formed," said attorney David Fried. 9 e

Jeffrey Ross of Friedman, Ross and Hersh e t R euro euro L: i

explained, "Recognizing that capital pun- O n gS re S S a n e S ri Cc e g a

ishment represents the `ultimate exercise

of state power, the Court held that to dis- a f t h -

charge their function as the public's repre- ro S ra mM S O r e O O ir

sentatives, witnesses are entitled to perceive

the nature and quality of the execution by n a victory for poor families and individuals in need of legal efit predicated on the condition that the recipients relinquish their

observing the condemned from prior to his | help, on February 21, U.S. District Judge Alan Kay in Hawaii constitutional rights.

immobilization and attachment to the issued a preliminary injunction blocking Congress' attempt to "Conservative lawmakers cannot suppress the expression of

death apparatus until after his death." restrict funds given to Legal Service Programs by non-Legal certain ideas and limit the legal rights of certain groups that

ACLU-NG managing attorney Alan | Services Corporation (LSC) sources - including money from Congress disfavors for ideological reasons," Bomse added.

Schlosser added, "As the administration of | states, cities, charitable foundations and private donors. In a 48-page preliminary injunction, Judge Kay held that most

the death penalty is a matter of great pub- This is the first ruling in the country which blocks the sweeping of the restrictions violate constitutional rights to free speech, free

lic concern and controversy, the Court | restrictions imposed by Congress on legal service programs funded association and to petition the government for redress of griev-

upheld the media's First Amendment right | by non-LSC sources. ances. The injunction also held that poor individuals' access to

to function in its critical role as the eyes "We are very pleased with the ruling," said Stephen Bomse of | legal representation would be severely impaired if the congression-

and ears of the public." Heller, Ehrman, White and McAuliffe, lead counsel in the suit Legal al restrictions remained in effect.

Contrary to arguments from the | Aid Society of Hawaii vs. Legal Services Corporation. "The judge Five legal service programs from California, Hawaii, and Alaska

Department of Corrections, the court | recognized that government does not have the right to grant a ben- Continued on page 3

19906 ACLU-NE Annual Report

settlement reached on February 13

Avene two San Francisco school

teachers and the State Commission

on Teacher Credentialing, lifts the cloud of

unfounded and exaggerated allegations |

that has haunted Edward Buckley and

Martha Squaglia-Castell because of one

parent's complaint about a presentation on

lesbian and gay issues in their family life

class at Everett Middle School in 1992.

"Based on a complaint ripe with gross

misrepresentations, homophobia, and hos-

tility towards sex education, the Commission

attempted to take away the credentials of

two fine teachers," explained ACLU-NC staff

attorney Kelli Evans. "The teachers fought

back, reached a settlement agreement with

the Commission, and will retain their full

teaching credentials. Fortunately for San

Francisco students, despite the wrongful

accusations, neither of these popular teach-

ers has been forced to miss a single day of

teaching," added Evans. oo

Evans and ACLU-NC staff attorney

Margaret Crosby, along with Ballinger

Kemp of the California Teachers

Association defended Mr. Buckley and Ms.

Squaglia-Castell in the face of the creden-

tial revocation.

DECADE OF PROGRAMS

On April 24, 1992, Ms. Squaglia-Castell

and Mr. Buckley supervised a school dis-

trict-approved family life class for sixth

grade students at Everett Middle School in

San Francisco. Prior to the class, both

teachers complied with all state and dis-

trict parental notification requirements.

Two trained speakers from Community

United Against Violence (CUAV), a non-

profit organization that has provided more

than a decade of well-received educational

Settlement Ends

Dispute over

Teacher Credentials

' programs in hundreds of classrooms in the

San Francisco school district, attended the

hour-long class and answered students'

questions regarding the lives of lesbians

and gay men.

A parent whose child attended the

Everett class claimed that his daughter

and her two friends told him that the

asked the speakers how gay people have

sex. The speakers, accustomed to receiv-

ing sex-related questions, responded in a

brief, clinical, and age-appropriate man-

ner. -

Although dozens of other students

attended the same class and thousands of

other students have attended virtually

"In these classes, students receive

critical information that can literally

save their lives or the lives of others."

speakers had spent the better portion of

the hour describing personal and graphic

sexual acts and that Mr. Buckley and Ms.

Squaglia-Castell failed to take any action.

"Contrary to the parent's claims, the

class did not consist of sexually graphic or

"inappropriate comments and the teachers

did not fail to adequately supervise the

class," said Evans, "The students' questions

dealt primarily with nonsexual matters

such as, `Does your family know that you are

gay?, `How old were you when you realized

you were gay?' `Do you want to have kids?'

and `Do people discriminate against you?'."

At one point during the class, a student

identical family life classes with CUAV

speakers, not a single other student or fam-

ily has complained about the content of the

presentation or about Mr. Buckley's or Ms.

Squaglia-Castell's competence.

INVESTIGATION

In response to the allegations, San

Francisco Unified School District conduct-

ed an investigation, determined that the

teachers were fit teachers, and decided to

allow CUAV speakers to continue providing

the important educational programs.

Taking into account parental concerns,

the District adopted a memorandum of

understanding with CUAV relating to train-

ing, presentation schedules, evaluations,

and parent notification.

Nevertheless, almost two years later,

the parent filed a complaint against the

teachers with the State Commission on

Teacher Credentialing and went to the

media with accusations against the teach-

ers, CUAV, and the District.

Although the Committee of Credentials

originally recommended the revocation of

Mr. Buckley's and Ms. Squaglia-Castell's

teaching credentials, the new agreement

states that both teachers will retain their

teaching licenses. In exchange, the teach-

ers have agreed to accept a ten-day suspen-

sion that does not impact their ability to

continue teaching; the agreement spares

them from enduring the ordeal even longer.

"Mr. Buckley and Ms. Squaglia-Castell

refuse to allow homophobia or hostility

towards sex education to strip them of

their licenses to teach. They have agreed to

this settlement simply to avoid the distrac-

tion of a hearing focused on a single class

session five years ago," said Crosby. "The

settlement is a far cry from victory for those

who wanted to end the careers of these dis-

tinguished teachers."

In addition, the settlement agreement

does not establish any type of precedent in

the District. Teachers may continue to

teach family life classes and may continue

to invite lesbian and gay speakers to their

classes.

"Mr. Buckley and Ms. Squaglia-Castell

stand firm in their convictions regarding

the importance of these classes to all stu-

dents, regardless of sexual orientation. In

these classes, students receive critical

information that can literally save their

lives or the lives of others," added Evans. @

High Court Upholds San Jose's

Anti-Gang Injunction

`n January 30, the California

QO Supreme Court ruled that the City

of San Jose may implement civil

anti-gang injunctions to penalize non-

criminal behavior if committed by alleged

gang members in a particular neighbor-

hood. The Court overturned a 1995 appel-

late court decision in the ACLU case,

People v. Acuna.

"The enthusiastic affirmation of anti-

gang injunctions by the state's highest

court adds momentum to the broad move-

ment in our state and across the country

that advocates criminalizing non-criminal

conduct, if such conduct is engaged in by

people out of favor - justifiably or not-

with the social mainstream," said ACLU-NC

cooperating attorney Amitai Schwartz.

Schwartz, a former ACLU-NC staff attorney

now in private practice, argued before the

high court in November that San Jose's

anti-gang injunction is unconstitutionally

vague and overbroad and targets Latino

youths without sufficient proof that they

have committed any crimes or harassed

residents.

"Simply because these men and women

are suspected gang members, they are

_ stripped of a variety of constitutional free-

doms, the rights to associate, to assemble

and the right to due process. This ruling

effectively places law-making powers in

the hands of judges instead of the

- Legislature," added Schwartz.

In 1995, the City of San Jose branded

over thirty young Latinos who congregate in

the Rocksprings area as gang members and

obtained a preliminary injunction, based on

public nuisance law, that imposes up to six

months in jail or a $1,000 fine for engaging -

in such legal activities as being seen in pub- (c)

lic with another "known gang member,"

"No doubt Montesquieu, Locke and Madison will

turn over in their graves when they learn they're

cited in an opinion that does not enhance liberty

but deprives a number of simple rights to a

group of Latino youths who have not been

convicted of a crime."

- Justice Stanley Mosk in a dissent

talking to someone inside a car, climbing a

tree, making a loud noises, wearing certain

clothing, or carrying marbles, screwdrivers,

pens, pagers and sparkplugs.

Because the injunction came via a civil

suit, those declared gang members were

not allowed protections ensured in a crimi-

nal proceeding such as the right to an

appointed attorney, a jury trial or criminal

justice standards of proof.

Although the author of the opinion,

Justice Janice Rogers, cited statesmen and

philosophers to justify her ruling that

"Liberty unrestrained is an invitation to

anarchy," Justice Stanley Mosk in a power-

ful dissent stated, "No doubt Montesquieu,

Locke and Madison will turn over in their

graves when they learn they're cited in an

opinion that does not enhance liberty but

deprives a number of simple rights to a

group of Latino youths who have not been

convicted of a crime.

"The majority would permit our cities

to close off entire neighborhoods to Latino

youths who have done nothing more than

dress in blue or black clothing or associate

with others who do so; they would autho-

rize criminal penalties for ordinary, nondis-

ACLU News = DUC ae 1997 = Pace 2

ruptive acts of walking or driving through a

residential neighborhood with a relative or

friend.

"Use of the word `gang' has a tendency

to strike fear in the hears of countless per-

sons. The trial court and now a majority of

this court have succumbed to that some-

what irrational fear," wrote Mosk.

The City of San Jose is not alone in

implementing such constitutionally ques-

tionable injunctions in an attempt stop

gang problems. Seduced by the temporary

reduction of violence in specific neighbor-

hoods, cities across the state especially in

the Los Angeles area, have issued similar

injunctions. Forty-eight cities in

California submitted an amici brief in the

case supporting the San Jose injunction.

In 1994, the ACLU was successful in

preventing one such order sought by the

City of Oakland. According to ACLU-NC

staff attorney Ed Chen, who successfully

litigated Oakland v. "B Street Boys," the

perceived success of gang abatement

injunctions, is not the pivotal issue.

"Whether they work in reducing crime or

not, they flagrantly violate the rights of

groups targeted specifically because of

their age, ethnicity and relationships.

Illegal searches may also work, but our

Constitution doesn't permit them, lest we

were to allow the government to impose a

`complete police state."

In addition to Schwartz and Chen, the

team of attorneys challenging the San

Jose injunction included the Public

Interest Law Firm attorneys Patricia Price

and Amanda Wilson; Sara Campos of the

Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights; and

San Jose lawyers Dan Mayfield and Stuart

Kirchick. @

Legal Services...

Continued from page |

originally filed the suit on January 9, in

US. District Court in Hawaii.

The agencies are represented by

Bomse as well as the National ACLU and

the ACLU of Northern California.

Under the restrictions imposed by

Congress as part of the 1996 and 1997 appro-

priations, legal services organizations that

obtain any portion of their financial support

from the LSC were prohibited from using

funds received from any other resources for

certain purposes, including legislative and

administrative advocacy, filing class action

lawsuits, conducting training sessions for

advocates, challenging federal or state wel-

fare laws, litigating abortion cases, or seek-

ing attorneys fees in cases where fees are

authorized by statute. In addition, the

restrictions prohibited the programs from

representing certain clients, including pris-

oners, people faced with eviction from pub-

lic housing for drugs, and many immigrants,

severely limiting access to critical legal

assistance for low-income people.

The court restrained all of these provi-

sions except those involving class actions,

fees and immigrants.

ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret

Crosby said, "The ruling provides some

relief to the community of poverty rights

advocates at a time when the number of

poor people needing legal assistance is

rapidly increasing because of cutbacks in

services due to budget cuts and overhaul of

welfare laws. It is unconscionable for con-

gress to deny indigent children and adults

access to justice to secure fundamental

rights of shelter, survival and safety." Hl

Settlement in Police Malicious

Prosecution Suit

fter ten years of litigation, three

Avie: officers have dismissed their

alicious prosecution suit against

an Alameda woman who filed a civil rights

claim charging the officers with brutality.

The officers also sued the woman's hus-

band and sister. The officers received

nothing in return for dismissing their suit

other than the agreement that each side

would bear its own legal costs. This agree-

ment was announced on February 10.

"This is a victory for Virlee Berry and

her family as well as for all civil rights

plaintiffs," said ACLU-NC staff attorney

Ann Brick. "Police cannot use malicious

prosecution suits as a form of intimidation

to prevent victims of police brutality from

seeking justice in the courts."

The litigation, Fuentes v. Berry, origi-

nated in February, 1987, when Virlee Berry

"Police cannot use malicious

prosecution suits as a form of

intimidation to prevent victims of

police brutality from seeking justice in

the courts."

filed a civil rights suit in U.S. District Court

against the City of Alameda, the Chief of

Police and the three individual officers,

Heriberto Fuentes, Robert Villa, and Ronald

Jones. Mrs. Berry alleged race discrimina-

tion by the Alameda Police Department and

brutality by the arresting officers.

On the eve of trial, the City agreed to set-

tle the suit with Mrs. Berry, paying her

$15,000. In exchange, the City required Mrs.

Berry to drop her case. The three named

police officers then filed a malicious prose-

cution suit in Alameda County Superior

Court against Mrs. Berry, her husband, and

her sister Betty Williams. The family turned

to the ACLU for legal representation.

During the course of the litigation, the

Court of Appeal held that when a settle-

ment agreement requires a litigant such

as Mrs. Berry to dismiss her claims against

all of the defendants, even those who do

not settle cannot later bring a malicious

prosecution action. It was this principle

that the ACLU sought to establish in tak-

ing this case. -

Mrs. Berry, and her family were repre-

sented by ACLU-NC cooperating attorneys

Jerome B. Falk, Jr. and Barbara A.

Winters, both partners in the San

Francisco law firm of Howard, Rice,

Nemerovski, Canady, Falk and Rabkin, along

with ACLU-NC staff counsel Ann Brick and

Ed Chen. @

Look for the ACLU on

the World Wide Web!

http://www.aclu.org

Coming later in 1997:

ACLU-NC's Web Site

San Quentin's ...

Continued from page |!

Calderon, on April 9, 1996 after William

Bonin became the first person in California

to be executed by lethal injection.

Reporters and other witnesses to Bonin's

February 23 execution were prevented by

San Quentin prison officials from observ-

ing the complete execution procedure.

Unable to offer first-hand accounts of the

process, including the difficulties prison

officials admitted they encountered in

inserting the IV needles, the journalists

could not thoroughly inform the public on

all aspects of the execution. Thus, the pub-

lic had to rely solely on prison officials for

information about how the new method of |

execution was being implemented.

A month after the filing, on May 31,

1996, the ACLU-NC obtained a preliminary

injunction on behalf of journalists, news

organizations and First Amendment advo-

cates enjoining prison officials from

restricting witness observation of execu-

tions. The injunction allowed journalists

and other witnesses to view San Quentin's

execution of Keith Daniel Williams.

Plaintiff Peter Sussman, former presi-

dent of the Society for Professional

Journalists, said, "Judge Walker's ruling is

right, it's important and it is also coura-

geous. The Court has recognized a First

Amendment right for public witnesses to

see this most irrevocable of governmental

acts in its entirety, without the mediation

of prison PR people. It's not a role anyone

can relish, but it's essential if the citizens

of this state are to be kept informed about

Marijuana ...

Continued from page |

On January 14, a group of physicians

and patients filed a class action lawsuit,

Conant v. McCaffrey, in U.S. District Court

in San Francisco in direct response to the

Clinton administration's December 30

announcement of its plan to fight imple-

mentation of Proposition 215 by threaten-

ing to punish doctors if they are found to be

recommending medical marijuana to their

patients. The plaintiffs, represented by the

ACLU-NC and attorneys from the San

Francisco firm Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum,

Berzon, and Rubin, are seeking an injunction

to block federal officials from taking any

punitive action, or threatening to do so,

against any such physicians.

A hearing is scheduled before U.S.

District Judge Fern Smith in San

Francisco for April 11, on the plaintiffs'

motion for a preliminary injunction.

the awesome powers exercised in their

name, he added.

The plaintiffs, the California First

Amendment Coalition and the Society for

Professional Journalists, are represented

by ACLU-NC managing attorney Alan

ACLU News = Marcn/Aprit 1997 = Pace 3

|

|

|

|

|

|

Schlosser and staff counsel Kelli Evans;

and cooperating attorneys David M. Fried;

Jeffrey S. Ross, Jill Hersh, Paul Jahn and

Michael J. Kass of Friedman, Ross and Hersh;

_ and Lynne S. Coffin of the Law Offices of

| Coffin and Love.

Monterey

presented awards to the winners of

its thirteenth annual Bill of Rights

Essay Contest at its 1997 Membership

Meeting in February. The topic this year:

"Dog Sniff Searches in Schools: Do They

Violate Students' Rights?" drew over 154

essays from local high schools and middle

schools in King City, Salinas, Seaside

Pacific Grove and Monterey.

The winning essays were read aloud at

the annual meeting, and were also printed

in the Monterey Herald. First place

winners

received $100

dollars, second

place winners

were award-

ed $50 dol-

lars and

honorable

mentions

[= Monterey County ACLU Chapter

Chapter

Gets an `A'

for Essay Contest

from Carmel High School. The winner of

first prize in the middle school category

was Lauren Norris from Pacific Grove

Middle School. First place winners

received $100 dollars, second place win-

ners were awarded $50 dollars and honor-

able mentions received a certificate.

Maria Wilhelm, who has chaired the

Essay Contest Committee since its incep-

tion, said that she is "continually amazed

at the fine quality of

the essays that we

receive."

"Y set tons

of letters from

teachers anx-

ious to thank

us for the

chance to

discuss

these

Db

is}

Ze

Ze

ie}

on

Zz

=

lear)

Maria Wilhelm, Chair of the Essay Contest Committee, and Atticus

Culver-Rease, first place winner in high school category.

received a certificate. "Our essay contest

theme is always a topical one," explained

Chapter Chair Katherine Stoner. "Last

year's theme was affirmative action -

mirroring the fight to defeat Proposition

209 - and this year's dog sniff theme coin-

cided with the ACLU of Northern

California's letter of protest to the

Monterey School District challenging their

dog sniff policy."

The first prize winner in the high

school category was Atticus Culver-Rease

Chapter Meetings

(Chapter meetings are open to all interested mem-

bers. Contact the Chapter activist listed for your

area.)

B-A-R-K (Berkeley-Albany-Richmond-

Kensington) Chapter Meeting: (Usually

fourth Thursday) For more information,

time and address of meetings, contact Jim

Chanin at 510/848-4752 or Rachel

Richman at 510/540-5507.

Earl Warren (Oakland/Alameda County)

Chapter Meeting: (Usually first

Wednesday) Meet at 7:30 PM at

Claremont House/Activity Room, 4500

Gilbert Street, Oakland (nr. Rockridge

Shopping Center). We encourage new

members to join us as we plan for the

Freedom of Expression Day and continue

our work on the Oakland civilian review

board, affirmative action, and ending drug

prohibition. For more information, call

Grover Dye at 510/530-1712.

Lesbian and Gay Rights Chapter Meeting:

(Usually first Thursday) ACLU-NC office,

1663 Mission Street, Suite 460, San

Francisco. Mailings and other activities

start at 6:30 PM. Speakers at 7:00 PM.

Business meeting starts at 7:30 PM. For

issues with their students. The students are

so enthusiastic that we always have individ-

uals enter on their own, even if teachers

haven't assigned the essay," Wilhelm added.

Chapter Chair Stoner feels the contest

is so successful "because our active chap-

ter members are so good at selecting top-

ics that interest students and teachers.

"We also have a dedicated core group

of readers and judges as well as a retinue

of teachers excited about bringing the Bill

of Rights to students," she added.

more information, contact Jeff Hooper at

510/460-0712 or Burton Weiss at

510/524-6073.

Marin County Chapter Meeting: (Usually

third Monday) Meet at 7:30 p.m. at the

Corte Madera Town Center, Community

Meeting Room. For more information,

contact Arnie Scher at 415/332-8704.

Mid-Peninsula (Palo Alto area) Chapter

Meeting: (Usually fourth Thursday) Meet

at 7:30 PM, at 460 South California

Avenue, Suite 11, Palo Alto. Join us for a

BENEFIT PARTY on May 3 - see ad this

page. For information, contact the

Chapter Hotline at 415/328-0732.

Monterey County Chapter Meeting:

(Usually third Tuesday) Meet at 7:15 PM,

Monterey Library. For more information,

contact Richard Criley at 408/624-7562.

North Peninsula (San Mateo area)

Chapter Meeting: (Usually third Monday)

Meet at 7:30 PM, at 700 Laurel Street, Park

Tower Apartments, top floor. For more

information, contact Marshall Dinowitz at

415/595-5131.

Redwood (Humboldt County) Chapter

Meeting: (Usually third Wednesday) Meet

SONOMA COUNTY

invites you to the

Annual Jack Green Civil

Liberties Award Ceremony

Dinner

FRIDAY, APRIL 11

5:30 PM music and

silent auction

7:00 PM Dinner

Sebastopol Veterans Auditorium

ViVi ics

Sebastopol, CA

Keynote Speaker

PaO oa

Award winning investigative

reporter and host of KPFA's

Flashpoints

Entertainment by

The Round

acoustic Celtic-Folk Band

For more information, contact :

Greg Downing at 707-795-7604

Volunteers Needed!

Benefit Party for the

Mid-Peninsula

featuring:

Mark Levy

Folk singer and political

satirist

BEECHWOOD STEPPERS

ae

Gourmet Buffet

Auction and Raffle

Saturday, May 3

from 3 to 6 p.m.

2 Arastradero Rd.,

Portola Valley

(behind Alpine inn)

Tickets: $15.00

For more information,

please call the Chapter

Hotline at 415/328-0732.

at the Office of Paul Gallegos at 320 2nd

Street in Eureka at 7:30 PM. We encourage

new members to join as we continue our

work on forming a citizen review board.

For information on upcoming meeting

dates and times, contact Christina Huskey

at 707/444-6595.

Sacramento Valley Chapter Meeting:

(Usually first Wednesday) Meet at 7:00 PM

at the Java City in Sutter Galleria (between

29 and 30, J and K Streets) in Sacramento. For

more information, contact Ruth Ordas at

916/488-9955.

San Francisco Chapter Meeting: (Usually

third Tuesday) Meet at 6:45 PM at the ACLU-

NC Office, 1663 Mission Street, Suite #460,

San Francisco. For more information, call

the Chapter Information Line at 415/979-

6699.

Santa Clara Valley Chapter Meeting:

(Usually first Tuesday) Meet at 7:00 PM at

the Community Bank Towers, 3rd Floor

Conference Room, 111 West St. John Street,

San Jose. For further chapter information

contact Bob Obrey at 408/745-1736.

Santa Cruz County Chapter Meeting:

(Usually third Monday) Meet at 7:15 PM.

For more information, contact Dianne

Vaillancourt at 408/454-0112. :

Sonoma County Chapter Meeting: (Usually

third Wednesday) Meet at 7:30 PM at the

Peace and Justice Center, 540 Pacific

Avenue, Santa Rosa. Call Judith Volkart at

707/526-2893 for more information.

Yolo County Chapter Meeting: (Usually

third Thursday) Meet at 7:30 PM, 2505 5th

Street #154, Davis. We encourage new

members to join us as we continue our

work on the school uniform policy of the

Woodland School District. We will also

hold our annual garage sale to raise funds.

For more information on any of these

events or other general chapter activities,

call Natalie Wormeli at 916/756-1900 or

the Chapter Hotline at 916/756-ACLU.

Chapters Reorganizing

If you are interested in reviving the Fresno,

Mt. Diablo or North Valley Chapter,

please contact Field Representative Lisa

Maldonado at 415/621-2493.

Field Action Meetings

(All meetings except those noted will be

held at the ACLU-NC Office, 1663

Mission Street, #460, San Francisco.)

Student Outreach Committee: Meet to

plan outreach activities. For more informa-

tion, contact Nancy Otto at 415/621-2006

ext. 37.

Student Advisory Committee: #For more

information, contact Nancy Otto at

415/621-2006 ext. 37.

ACLU News =# Marcnu/ApRIL TTT Py. a

NN

Union

Liberties

Civ

American

19927

Mea (c) c ht

Dorothy M. Ehrlich

. Executive Director

Dick Grosboll

Chair

-

Dear Friends of the ,ACLU

hy does it seem that the rights which we cherish - and the hard-won

guarantees of equality - diminish over time?

It seems that with each new victory - whether itis a decision

} supporting reproductive freedom, a stay of an execution, or a positive electoral vote on

Z

medical marijuana - we face an enormous backlash, and a terrible price to pay.

The ACLU' issues are not selected for their popularity, and they often pit the ACLU

against much more powerful - and more popular - forces. Rather they are selected

_ because the powerless require the protection of the Bill of Rights from the majority.

Whether they are new immigrants to California, lesbian and gay youth or those left to

beg on our streets - the ACLU's agenda has mirrored the economic and political strife in

this state. ,

At no time has that been truer than today.

Our work this past year against Proposition 209 is part of a long line of actions which

have us face off with the voters, always a tough forum for those who protect minority

rights, and often have us end up in court. We stand accused by the highest political

officers of the state - and those in the public who would follow their lead - of ignoring

the democratic election. We are confronted by a judiciary, both federal and state, that

often seems to have lost its historical commitment to enforce the Constitution, when

such decisions disagree with majority wishes. :

Congressional actions during the past year alone, have brought us enough cases to

litigate for decades - from welfare and immigration "reform," to the so-called counter-

terrorism and "effective" death penalty legislation, to the Communications Decency Act,

the slashing of legal services funds and the attack on prison reform litigation. Especially

following the decade of the Reagan and Bush Administrations, we were hardly braced

for this new wave of damage to fundamental civil liberties. :

Yet we remain hopeful. The promise comes in the form of this year's United States

Supreme Court decision striking down Colorado' anti-gay Amendment 2; it comes

when the California Supreme Court agrees to rehear our case defending the right of

young women to an abortion and when it overturns a piece of the insidious Three

Strikes law; it comes with a federal court ruling that Proposition 209 violates the rights

of women and minorities to have equal access to our political process.

But most of all, the promise comes from being a part of an organization - 77 years

old - that has the ability to respond to set-backs and defeats and to turn them into

opportunities. That experience, coupled with the organizational strength that the board

and staff have developed working together, along with our 16 chapters, our sister

affiliates in California, our coalition partners, and our generous donors and volunteers -

will serve us well as we develop new strategies to work effectively for justice in the

future. : ,

We hope that as you read our 1996 Annual Report, you will also be stirred by the forces

we are willing to confront and inspired by our victories. We hope that you will join us in

these battles, these increasingly crucial battles, to ensure equal justice for all.

American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California

1663 Mission Street

Suite 460

San Francisco, CA 94103

Telephone: 415/621-2493

fF

PR UNSER ANU ER a 0d HEMT PRRES eal HERDS fg dee ARG Cop RRe LE a iT AN RNS Re CG COCO ari ae TIAN SN PLU Ee Ziel) di eeM ay NS

Ri Cece, Pete shah thet Uc Re len gpa Nga NOR Dea aaNet pec det

MBS

PERSONALS LA A Git LIT Oe MOAT SAR Kesh te EYP MARION LO oe aR on ETM MAE eran Me nt Seep Dinh RUSS VER Sie) Wd hE ODE ACR IONE a RO TRIES ANS LI ne SORCOF Gi tre NSCS 7 AS CIER 5 BV @UOTIU SY Tah asa f QED BERT Ria Batt haie SA Nea pee aoeLT re OO

EAP LES ie mate ERE AUN ay IRI ERO SEA BANE DSN G CECE GT EE CHO RRR I Sah Pe RM NASP RIC

1997 ACLU-NC

Board of Directors

Dick Grosboll, Chair

Luz Buitrago, Vice-Chair"

Davis Riemer, Vice-Chair"

Ethan P. Schulman, Vice-Chair"

Michelle (Mickey) Welsh, Vice-Chair'

Nancy S. Pemberton, Treasurer"

Sonia Baur

MarshaS. Berzon

Angelo Butler

Robert P. Capistrano

Marna Cohen

Marlene De Lancie

Quinn Delaney

Lucille Des Jardins

Greg Downing

Eleanor Eisenberg"

Milton N. Estes'

Darwin Farrar

Leland Francois

Warren E. George

Fernando Gutierrez, Ed.D.,J.D.

Aundre Herron

Marina Hsieh"

Martha | Jimenez

Lenny Karpman

Jenny M. Kern

David Kirp

Dennis McNally

Susan Mizner

Carlos Munioz, Jr.

Raymond L. Ocampo, Jr.

Maria Ontiveros"

David B. Oppenheimer

Rachel Richman

M. Louise Rothman-Riemer

Millicent Rutherford

Zona Sage

David Salniker

John Schweizer'

Carl Stokes, Jr.

Frances C. Strauss (Member

Emeritus)'

Beverly Tucker

Burton Weiss

ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1981.batch ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1982.batch ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1984.batch ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1985.batch ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1986.batch ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1987.batch ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1988.batch ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1989.batch ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1990.batch ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1991.batch ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1992.batch ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1993.batch ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1994.batch ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1995.batch ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1996.batch ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1997.batch ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log Members of the Executive Committee and the

Board of Governors of the ACLU Foundation of

Northern California

ACLU-NC Staff:

Maria Archuleta

Fran Beal

David Blazevich

Ann Brick

Cheri Bryant

Rini Chakraborty

Ed Chen

John Crew

Margaret Crosby

Mila De Guzman

Rita Een

Dorothy Ehrlich

Elaine Elinson

KelliEvans |

lain Finlay

Tara Henry

Sandy Holmes

Hartzell Lemons

Francisco Lobaco

Lisa Maldonado

Robert Nakatani

Valerie Small Navarro.

_ Leah Nestell

Nancy Otto

Alan Schlosser

Temporary Staff:

Emily Landsverk

Regina Meade

ScottPlymale

Keith Wentworth

Etta Wong

Steven Zerebecki

Credits

Editor: Elaine Elinson

Writing/Research: Maria Archuleta,

| Marianna Laczo, Marvin Lew,

___lLaurenTeukolsky -

Design: San Francisco Art Department

Printing. Howard Quinn

|

Highlights of the 7

he 1996-97 Legal Docket highlights the crucial

need for the ACLU-NC.

The ACLU is on the frontlines of the key

legal battles in the state today - the preserva-

tion of affirmative action and immigrant rights in the

face of hostile initiatives, the protection of the right to

safe and legal abortions for pregnant teenagers, extend-

ing freedom of expression to new forms of expression in

cyberspace, protecting doctors who want to discuss

medical marijuana with their patients, and the efforts to

ensure that law enforcement officials don't break down

doors, prohibit legitimate protests or arrest young people

based simply on their race or their style of dress.

What link these disparate issues - and the more than

60 cases that are on our Legal Docket - are the racism

and injustice that fuel much of public policy today. And

the ACLU's commitment to justice and equality is what

links the many different kinds of people and institutions

we represent.

We maintain our legal efforts on behalf of traditional

civil liberties issues, yet we face new challenges borne of

today's economic hardships and political scapegoating.

The rights of the homeless, of immigrants, of welfare

recipients, of pregnant teenagers, of people with AIDS -

as well as the free expression rights of a new generation

of activist students and others who would protest today's

injustices - are under attack. We battle for these rights

both in and out of court.

Though we cannot describe every one of our current

cases, we summarize here the highlights of our legal

docket.

Our long-term, strategic efforts for a more just society

are coupled with the need to react quickly and effectively

to particular civil liberties crises and emergencies. Never

was this more evident than on the morning following the

November election, when we went to federal court to

stop the insidious Proposition 209 - the massive rollback

in equal opportunity for women and people of color -

from being implemented.

We also respond to civil liberties abuses outside of

court. This year, our Police Practices Project put a

spotlight on the failure of the Oakland Police Department

to provide accurate information to the public about filing

- complaints and has assisted families and community

groups in fighting police abuse. With a letter, a meeting

with a principal, or testimony before a school board we

have helped students secure their rights of free expres-

sion at school.

In 1996-97, the ACLU-NC Legal Department was

directed by Managing Attorney Alan Schlosser and

staffed by lawyers Ann Brick, Edward Chen, John Crew,

Margaret Crosby and Kelli Evans. The staff attorneys are

ably assisted by Frances Beal and Leah Nestell; this year,

additional assistance has been provided by Emily

Landsverk, Keith Wentworth and Etta Wong.

In addition, three national ACLU projects are now

housed part-time in our affiliate office. The Immigrant

Rights Project, directed by Lucas Guttentag and the

Lesbian/Gay Rights and AIDS Projects, directed by our

former staff counsel Matthew Coles, inform and support

our strategies in these important arenas.

The Legal Department also oversees the work of the

Complaint Desk. The Desk, staffed by a dozen volunteer

counselors, receives more than 200 calls and letters each

week from people who feel their rights have been

violated. Advised by the staff attorneys and law students

who clerk for the ACLU-NC during the year, these lay

counselors screen requests for assistance and often

provide the advocacy needed to resolve particular

grievances.

We share the accomplishments of our legal program

with more than 100 dedicated lawyers who donate their

services to the ACLU-NC as cooperating attorneys. More

than half of our cases this year were handled by cooper-

ating attorneys working with staff counsel. Without

their expertise and advocacy the ACLU-NC would

not be able to address many pressing civil liberties issues.

A list of the 1996-97 cooperating attorneys and firms is on

page 19.

NANCY OTTO

he photos in this year's Annual Report were all taken by participants in a field investigation on immigration in California

sponsored by the ACLU-NC Howard A. Friedman First Amendment Education Project. Eighteen high school students and four adults

spent 9 days in August traveling to Los Angeles, San Ysidro, Tiajuana, San Diego, La Paz, Bakersfield, and Salinas meeting with border patrol

agents, working with farmworkers, observing anti-immigrant rallies and the National Republican Convention, and taking part in marches,

demonstrations and a border blockade.

Cover photo by Pat Lapid.

ACLU-NC Annual Report

Freedom of

expression

frotecting the right to dissent has

~ always been a priority for the

ACLU. This year, the ACLU-NC was

successful in protecting protesters

ranging from rural high school

students opposing Proposition 187 to

San Franciscans arrested for defying a

demonstration ban in the wake of the

Rodney King verdicts.

" Anti-racism demonstrators

Free speech receives its ultimate

test when government purports to

base actions limiting speech on the

exigencies of an emergency, whether

national security or a local disorder.

Such was the case in Collins v. Jordan

et al. in which former San Francisco

Police Chief Richard Hongisto

claimed he was entitled to qualified

immunity from money damages

when he banned all protest demon-

strations on May 1, 1992 in the wake

of the acquittal of the Los Angeles

police officers who beat Rodney

King.

On the evening of May 1, 1992 -

two days after the announcement of

the verdicts in the Rodney King

beating case, and one day after there

had been incidents of looting and

disorder in the downtown San

Francisco area - Hongisto, former

Mayor Frank Jordan and other city

officials decided not to permit any

demonstrations, peaceful or other-

wise, throughout the City of San

Francisco. When protesters gathered

for a march at 24th and Mission

Streets to speak out against racism

and police brutality, Police Chief

Hongisto ordered them dispersed.

By the end of the evening, over four

hundred people had been arrested;

they were held in the Santa Rita jail

for up to 55 hours.

The ACLU-NC filed an amicus

brief in 1995 charging that Chief

Hongistos ban violated core First

Amendment principles because it

prevented speech on an issue of great

public controversy from being

communicated at the very time

when public concern and attention

was focused on the issue.

In December 1996, the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that

the former police chief was not

entitled to qualified immunity

because he could not have reason-

ably believed that it was lawful to

issue a blanket ban on all protest

demonstrations, no matter how

peaceful, in view of the fact that with

few exceptions the First Amendment

prohibits prior restraints on protect-

ed speech and content-based

restrictions.

The protesters sued in U.S. District

Court charging the City and specific

city officials for violating their First

and Fourth Amendment rights. The

defendants moved for summary

judgment based on qualified _

immunity. When the US. District

Court denied the defendants' motion,

Chief Hongisto, the Mayor and other

police officials appealed to the Ninth

Circuit.

An earlier ACLU-NC lawsuit,

Brown v. Jordan, on behalf of the

hundreds of demonstrators who

were subject to mass arrest in the

King verdict demonstrations a week

later on May 8, was settled last year;

the demonstrators had their arrest

records expunged and also received a

monetary payment.

Both suits underscore the

importance of the right to take part in

peaceful demonstrations without

fear of arrest and help to ensure that

the police will adhere to the First

Amendment and follow the existing

official crowd control procedures

that were negotiated by the ACLU-

NC Police Practices Project.

(c) Anti-187 Protests

When Yuba City High School

senior and president of MEChA |

(Movimiento Estudiantil de Aztlan)

Itlilxochitl Soto organized a peaceful

demonstration against Proposition

187, she never expected supporters of

the anti-immigrant measure to sue

her for negligence, assault and

battery, and intentional infliction of

emotional distress. But as a result of

her political activism, the 18-year old

senior was sued in Sutter County

Superior Court. The ACLU joined

other civil rights organizations in

defending the student activist, who

helped lead the march and spoke at

protests in front of the Yuba City and

Marysville City Halls.

The ACLU argued in Orlando v.

Yuba City Unified School District that

the First Amendment and California

law protect individuals from lawsuits

arising out of their peaceful political

activity; in fact, the California Code of

Civil Procedure explicitly allows

defendants such as Soto to file special

motions to dismiss such lawsuits.

Confronted by these arguments, the

plaintiffs dropped their suit in May.

A victory for press freedom was

struck in May when journalists and

First Amendment advocates

successfully challenged the Califor-

nia Department of Corrections (CDC)

procedures which limited reporters

covering executions at San Quentin.

When in February William Bonin

became the first person in California

to be executed by lethal injection,

reporters and other witnesses to the

execution were

prevented

by prison officials from observing the

complete execution procedure. In

April, the ACLU-NC filed California

First Amendment Coalition v. Calderon

in US. District Court challenging the

secrecy of the prisons execution

procedures.

The ACLU-NC charged that the

restrictions prevented reporters from

offering first-hand accounts of the

execution, including the inmates

demeanor and his treatment by the

guards, and forced them to rely on

official prison accounts - thus

depriving the public of an accurate

and complete view of the entire

execution process.

The court issued an injunction in

May on the eve of the execution of

Keith Daniel Williams, the second

person on California's Death Row to

die by lethal injection, based on the

publics First Amendment right to

witness executions. The Department

appealed the ruling; their request for

an emergency stay was denied by the

Ninth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme

Court, and their appeal of the

pteliminary injunction was denied.

Executions are the ultimate

criminal sanction, said one journalist,

and we owe it to the public to tell that

story as thoroughly and as accurately

as possible.

" Prison gag order

The ACLU-NC has also been part'

of another effort to ensure that

journalists can cover prisoners and

prison conditions without unneces-

sary governmental limitations. In

November, the California Office of

Administrative Law (OAL) issued a

formal ruling disapproving the

Department of Corrections proposed

new regulations aimed

at silencing incarcerated men and

women. The ACLU-NC submitted

written objections to the regulations

as contrary to First Amendment

principles and unsound as a matter

of public policy.

The new CDC regulations would

eliminate face-to-face interviews and

confidential mail between the media

and prisoners. Although journalists

could still interview random inmates

encountered during guided tours

and "visit" specific prisoners as ~

members of the general public, the

journalists were barred from

bringing with them any type of

"recording device,' including pen and

paper. The Department of Correc-

tions (CDC) claimed the new regula-

tions were necessary to maintain

security and to prevent criminals

from becoming "celebrities."

In written testimony, the ACLU-

NC argued that the expansion of the

prison system should not be accom-

panied by an expansion of secrecy

about its operations. Public confi-

dence and accountability require that

the present system of media access,

which has worked well over the past

twenty years, be maintained.

The California regulations mirror

attempts in several other states to cut

off prisoner interviews with the news

media and are therefore being closely

watched elsewhere.

@ Open meetings/Public access

In February, the Daily Nexus, the

University of California at Santa

Barbara newspaper, and a student

reporter, represented by the ACLU

affiliates of Northern and Southern

California and other public interest

groups, filed Molloy v. Regents of the

University of California in San

Francisco Superior Court, charging

that Governor Pete Wilson anda

quorum of the U.C. Board of

Regents violated the Bagley-

Keene Open Meetings Act by

secretly committing to

eliminate affirmative action in

the UC system prior to their

July 1995 public session. The

suit also charges Wilson with

failure to provide telephone

records of these discussions in

violation of the Public Records

Act.

At the public Regents' meeting,

two extremely controversial

resolutions - abolishing affirma-

tive action in admissions and

employment - were approved.

The suit maintains that because the

Regents violated their obligation to

deliberate in public, their decision

to abolish affirma-

tive action is

"null and void."

Governor

Wilson has

made several

attempts to

dismiss the

lawsuit: these

requests were

denied in turn

by the

Superior

Court, the

Court of

Appeal, and by

the California

Supreme Court

inJulyina

NANCY OTTO

ee a mca Sa GN Sm CH AS SS SS a Sa SSS a SS TS A A A SS a a SS Sm SS A A SA SS A A A A A A AS A A A A A A A A A A YS a a

unanimous vote. The case will now

proceed to trial in San Francisco

Superior Court. In preparation for the

trial, Governor Wilson and members

of the Board will have to answer

questions under oath about their

secret conversations before their

public meeting where they voted to

end affirmative action.

Rights of Doctors

and Patients

In January 1997, a group of

physicians and patients filed aclass

action suit in U.S. District Court in

San Francisco seeking an injunction

blocking federal officials from taking

any punitive action against doctors

who simply recommend the medical

use of marijuana to their patients.

The lawsuit is a direct response to the

Clinton administration's December

30 announcement of its plan to fight

implementation of Proposition 215

by threatening doctors with a range

of punishment for speaking about

marijuana to their patients.

The ACLU-NC is part of a legal

team representing the plaintiffs, who

include physicians, patients who are

being treated for AIDS, cancer and

other diseases, and a number of

organizations. The suit argued that

the federal government's current

efforts to insert itself between doctors

and their patients on the issue of

medical marijuana is contrary to

most fundamental First Amendment

values. The government is making a

heavy-handed attempt to silence a

group that is particularly well-placed

to speak with authority in delivering

a message that is different from the

governments official line. The

purpose of the lawsuit, Conant v.

McCaffrey, Director of the White House

Office of National Drug Control Policy,

is to see that the government does

not succeed in silencing these

physicians.

Proposition 215, the Compassion-

ate Use Act of 1996, which was passed

by 56% of the voters in November,

altered California law by providing

immunity for the possession or

cultivation of marijuana for a specific

group of people - seriously ill

patients who are using marijuana on

the `recommendation or approval' of

their physician. To invoke that

immunity, the patient must prove

_ that his or her physician advised that

taking marijuana was medically

appropriate.

However, given the new threats of

federal action against physicians who

recommend marijuana, doctors who

believe that marijuana may help a

particular patient face a difficult

choice: they can tell the patient of

their truthful medical opinion and

expose themselves and their practice

to punitive action that could destroy

their livelihood and even land them

in prison, or they can censor their

discussions, depriving patients of

useful treatment alternatives and

eroding the trust and confidence

essential to the doctor-patient

relationship.

The suit argues that a doctor's

recommendation to a patient, and his

or her public acknowledgement of

that recommendation in the context

of acriminal proceeding against the

a a a A SS SOS, SS Sa Sa a a a SS a OO a OS) A A a A ae OS SA GSA SA SA A A a a SS A SSS SS AS SF GA FS NO A A A GO a PA A a Sl

patient, both constitute protected

speech for which any penalties at all

would be impermissible.

Cyber-Liberties

In aresounding victory for First

Amendment rights everywhere, the

ACLU lawsuit ACLU v. Reno wona

ruling from a three-judge federal

court in Philadelphia striking down a

law that would criminalize free

speech in cyberspace. The court

issued an injunction on the `indecen-

cy' provisions of the federal Commu-

nications Decency Act, stating `As the

most participatory form of mass

speech yet developed, the Internet

deserves the highest protection from

governmental intrusion."

This groundbreaking decision -

deciding what the rules will beina

new communications medium -

greatly affects the work of the ACLU-

NC, which is also fighting for

freedom of expression on the

information superhighway.

In one case, the ACLU-NC filed an

amicus brief in United States v. Thomas

on behalf a Milpitas couple who

operated a computer bulletin board

specializing in sexually explicit

material. In one of the first prosecu-

tions of its kind, they were convicted

by a federal court in Tennessee for

violating federal obscenity statutes.

The ACLU argued that the court erred

in using the community standards of

Memphis, Tennessee as the standard

against which the alleged obscenity

of the materials in question was to be

determined.

Although the Sixth Circuit upheld

the convictions, it left open the

possibility that, in the future, a

defendant who makes material

available over the Internet could

challenge his or her trial in some

distant, conservative venue.

Censorship

and The Arts

@ Art exhibit

When the Mill Valley City

Manager requested that no nude art

work be displayed as part of the City's

regular exhibits, a showing of 30

charcoal drawings of nudes by a local

woman artist was threatened. The

ACLU-NC Annual

SA SS A SS A A A A A A

ee ee a FF A SSS A SS PA A Oe

Report

the

ultimate criminal

sanction, said one

journalist, and we

owe it to the public

to tell that story as

thoroughly and as

accurately as

possible.

participatory form

of mass speech yet

developed, the

Internet deserves

the highest

protection from

governmental

intrusion."

U.S. District Court

1996