vol. 32, no. 4

_ American

Civil Liberties

Union

Volume XXXII.

Number 4

Contempt of Court

SAN FRANCISCO, APRIL, 1967

The action of the Davis Justice Court in sentencing David

W. Rees to one day in jail for contempt of court in failing to

have his hair "cut to decent length" was set aside last month

by Superior Court Judge Warren K. Taylor of Yolo County.

On his successful petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the

Superior Court, Rees was repre-

sented by ACLU volunteer at-

torney Lawrence Karlton of Sac-

ramento. :

Traffic Citation

Rees was arrested on a traffic

citation on January 5, 1967, and

tried on February 6, at which

time C. D. Archer of Knights

Landing, not a lawyer, was sitting

as acting judge. Rees was asked

his name, and, after he respond-

-ed, Judge Archer wanted to know

whether it was Mr., Mrs. or Miss.

He then instructed his bailiff to

take Rees to a barber shop to

~ have his hair cut. As luck would

have it, it was a Monday and all

the barber shops were closed.

When the pair returned, the

bailiff explained the situation,

and the Judge ordered Rees to

appear the next day with his hair

cut or be sent to jail for one day.

The case was continued until the

next day, when Lawrence Karl-

ton appeared as counsel for Rees,

What Court Records Showed

Aceording to the court's own

records, "Defendant held in con-

tempt- due to appearance, or-

dered to have hair cut to decent

length-1 day for contempt un-

til complies with order of the

court . . ." The Judge's com-

mitment order read: "Defendant

appeared in court with a very ar-

rogant attitude-defendant had

exceptionally long hair, longer

than most females. As this judge

felt the defendant's attitude and

appearance should be better, the

court so informed the defendant

in open court and told the de-

fendant unless he made himself

presentable to the court by hav-

ing his hair cut to a decent

length, the court-neld him in con-

tempt of court for 1 day. The

court gave the defendant 1 day to

February 7, 1967, at 1:00 p.m.

to comply." On February 7 he

appeared in court without having

had his hair cut.

Not Unlimited Power

In his decision, Judge Taylor

declared that "The power of the

Court to punish for contempt is

very broad and extends to the

appearance of persons in the

courtroom but it is not an un-

limited power. It is a drastic

remedy, to be employed only

when necessary to proper and

orderly conduct of judicial pro--

ceedings. In our society, people

are free to be different. This

right to be let alone is funda-

mental."

No Interference With Court

The court also said that "For

a person's conduct to be con-

temptuous it must in some way

tend to interrupt the proceed-

ings of the Court or to impair

the respect due its authority.

. .. There is nothing in the rec-

ord of the Justice Court indicat-

ing that the length of petitioner's

hair caused or tended to cause

such an interruption or impair-

ment. Indeed, it is difficult to

conceive of a hair style which

would have such an effect. Al-

though this Court might agree

with the trial judge's aesthetic

judgment regarding the length

of petitioner's hair, it cannot

agree that he had the right to

regulate the length of petition-

_ @r's hair in the absence of a find-

ing that it interfered with the

conduct of the Court. All types _

of persons must appear in a

courtroom; many appear invol-

untarily. To allow a judge to pre-

scribe the hair style of such per-

sons without a showing that it

was necessary for the orderly ad-

ministration of justice is improp-

er and violates such person's

right to be let alone. The length

of petitioner's hair is his busi-

ness; if his hair style was such as

to offend the personal sensitive-

ness of the trial judge, it was not

of such nature that it prejudiced

the expeditious, orderly and dis-

passionate conduct of the Court's

proceedings."

Insufficient Facts

The court also noted that the

court's order failed to detail the

facts constituting the alleged

transgression. It was not suffi-

cient the court declared to allege

that the "Defendant appeared in

court with an arrogant manner." . i :

_ day, April 23 at 1 oclock, will be

Loitering Law

Upheld by -

S. F. Court

The attack on California's anti-

loitering law, Penal Code section

647(e), received a setback last

month when the Appellate De-

partment of the San Francisco

Superior Court affirmed the con-

viction of Dean Plagowski under

this section. ACLUNC attorneys

had urged the Appellate Depart-

ment to follow the Los Angeles

County Superior Court Appellate

Department in People v. Weger

holding See. 647 (e) unconstitu-

tional on the ground that it re-

quires a person to identify him-

self and account for his presence

or be guilty of a crime, which is

in contrast to the constitutional

right to remain silent when ques-

tioned by a police officer.

No Opinion :

The San Franeisco court wrote

no opinion but did order the case

certified to the Court of Appeal

for further hearing on the consti-

tional issue. However, the Court

of Appeal declined to accept the

certification, meaning that it

would not rule on the issue. The

most probable reason for this ac-

tion of the Court of Appeal is the

fact that the Weger case from

the Los Angeles area was also

certified to the Court of Appeal

and the issues will be heard and

decided in that case.

Request to Hold Case

ACLUNC attorneys Richard

Peritz and Marshall W. Krause,

have asked the Appelate Depart-

ment of the San Francisco Su-

perior Court to hold Plagowski's

ease until the decision in the

Weger case and then make ap-

propriate modifications if the

section should be held unconsti-

tutional. the Weger court does

not hold the section unconstitu-

tional, then the Plagewski case

can be appealed to the United

States Supreme Court.

Legislative

Comm. Needs

Exec. Officer

The branch Legislative Com-

mittee needs a volunteer to

serve as its executive officer.

The Committee meets monthly

in the evening and a subcom-

mittee which screens bills

meets as the need arises. The

executive officer keeps the

committee's records, writes

letters as directed and serves

as its liaison with the chapter

legislative committee and the

legislative representative in

Sacramento. If you have the

time and are interested in vol-

unteering to handle this im-

portant job please get in touch

with Ernest Besig, ACLUNC

executive director at the

ACLU ofice, 503 Market St.,

San Francisco, Calif. 94105 or

*phone 433-2750.

Seminars on

Film Censorship

At Cal Poly

The Cal Poly College Union

Fine Arts Committee in San

Luis Obispo has scheduled four

seminars on film censorship dur-

ing April. On three successive

Thursday mornings at 11:10 in

Sci. E-27, beginning April 6, the

following topics will be discussed

by informed speakers: "The

Church- and Censorship," "Cen-

sorship and the Individual-The

Psychological- Motives," and

"Censorship and the Law." :

' The final film seminar, Sun-

open only to those persons who

attended all three lecture forums

and paid a fee of $1. At that ses-

sion, there will be an exhibition

of films that have been or would

be censored because of their ap-

peal to "prurient interest." Gen-

eral discussion will follow the

showing of the films.

Tickets for the entire series

may be purchased at the T.C.U.

or at the door April 6. Attend-

ance is limited to 125 persons.

The -seminars will be open to

any interested person associated

with Cal Poly who wishes to at-

tend.

On March 20 and 21 attorneys attacking and defending .

California's Proposition 14 presented their arguments to the |

U. S. Supreme Court. Attorneys for the California Real |

Kstate Association had been successful in obtaining certiorari _

from the high court to review the 5-2

fornia Supreme Court that the

Proposition; if allowed to be-

come part of the State's Con-

stitution, would be state action

encouraging racial discrimination

in housing and thus must be

struck down as a violation of

the 14th Amendment's "equal

protection" clause. -

Crux of Dispute

The crux of the constitutional

dispute is whether the Proposi-

tion is merely `neutral' state

aetion allowing renters and sell-

ers of real property the same

freedom to discriminate or not

discriminate on the grounds of

race which they had before any

state anti-discrimination legisla-

tion was enacted, or whether it

is state action encouraging ra-

cial discrimination because it

nullifies existing anti-discrimina-

tion laws in housing, provides

that no new laws in this field

may be passed by state or local

Capital

Punishment

Challenged

At its March meeting the

ACLUNC board decided to chal-

lenge the constitutionality of

California's capital punishment

law.

The challenge will be predicat-

ed on the Due Process Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment,

It is ACLUNC's position that the

Capital punishment law violates

due process in that it provides

ho standards by which juries

ean distinguish between those to

whom the death penalty shall be

applied, thus leaving it up to

their whim and caprice. How

best .to implement this new poli-

cy was left to the staff. ACLUNC

will probably participate as a

friend of the court in a number

of death penalty cases. Two con-

demned men have already sought

_ACLUNC's intervention on their

behalf,

Charles Bricker, Army Reservist -

ACLU Will Defend C.O.

Denied Appeal Hearing

Charles Bricker faces a federal court indictment charging

him with failure to submit to induction into the armed forces.

Bricker enlisted voluntarily in the army reserves but after

he had begun his reserve training realized that he could not:

fire a gun and kill people and that he was conscientiously

opposed to the use of violence |

in warfare. His repeated at-

tempts to obtain a discharge

from `the reserves were rejected.

Finally, when he declined to

come to reserve meetings, his file:

was turned over to his draft

board and he was classified 1A.

Bricker immediately applied for

status as a conscientious objector

but, after a hearing before the

draft board, he was turned

down. Then the draft board de

nied him the right to appeal its

decision, allegedly on the ground

that because he was a reservist

he had no-right to an appeal.

Due Process Claim

ACLUNC has voted to defend

Charles Bricker against this

criminal charge both on the

basis that he was denied due

process of law in the way his

appeal was not processed and

because there is no basis in fact

for denying his claim as a con-

scientious objector. Although

Bricker is not a member of any

recognized pacifist church he

does have religious feelings

which prevent him from par-

ticipating in wars and his sin-

cerity in this respect is unani-

mously agreed to by all evidence

thus far available in the case.

Had Bricker not gone into the

reserves, he would be entitled

to an appeal from the decision of

`his local draft board and an

even further appeal under cer-

tain conditions. To deny him

these rights merely because he

became a conscientious objector

after he had become a member

of the reserves, is to draw a dis-

tinction in the granting and de-

nial of draft deferments which

is essentially arbitrary. Bricker's

trial is now scheduled for May 22

in Federal District Court in San

Francisco,

decision of the Cali-

government (without further |

constitutional amendment), and ,

makes the "right" to discrimi- |

nate a constitutional right. |

Licensing Discrimination

The ACLU of Southern Cali- |

fornia carried the main bur-

den of attacking the Proposition

before the high court - through

attorneys Herman F. Selvin,

A. L. Wirin and Fred Okrand.

The Solicitor General of the

United States, Thurgood Mar-

shall, also argued that the Prop-

osition is unconstitutional. He

said that the Proposition licenses

discrimination in one of the

most significant areas of public

concern, the right to choose a

place to live. This oversteps

the bounds of State neutrality

because it creates an affirma-

tive right to discriminate and

disables the State from discharg-

ing its constitutional duty to

assure against invidious discrimi-

nations. Other briefs amicus cu-

riae were filed by the State of

California, the Democratic State

Central Committee and _ the

ACLU of Northern California.

ACLUNC Brief

ACLUNC's brief was prepared

by volunteer attorney Jerome

Falk with the assistance of staff

counsel Marshall W. Krause. (A

few extra copies are available

at the ACLUNC office at $1

each.) The brief argues that the

effect of Prop. 14 is to create a

constitutional right to discrimi-

nate on the basis of race in the

sale or rental of housing in Cali-

fornia. "The establishment of.

such a right has the effect of

encouraging race discrimination

in the housing market. Unlike

the mere repeal of unwanted

legislation, it provides great as-

surance that in the future the

practice of race discrimination

will not be disturbed, either by

legislative, executive, or judicial

action on a state-wide basis, or

by governmental action on a

municipal basis. Moreover, the

establishment of a constitutional

right of any kind inevitably car-

ries the connotation that the

state does not find the exercise

of that right morally objection-

able. This alters the moral

elimate in California with re-

gard to race discrimination in

housing, thus further encourag-

ing the practice of such discrimi-

nation."

Ban on Action

The brief goes on to say that

to find Prop. 14 unconstitutional

there is no need to argue that

anti-discrimination laws could

not be repealed, since Prop. 14

does more than repeal existing

legislation by placing the affir- ~

mative right to discriminate in

the state's constitution. Nor does

ACLU's constitutional argument

require taking the position that.

the state is constitutionally

compelled to legislate to elimi-

nate racial discrimination in

housing. The important point

about Proposition 14 is that gov-

ernment agencies are disabled

from doing anything about racial

discrimination in housing even

if they want to. This applies not

only to legislative bodies, but to

California's judiciary which

would be barred from developing

common law principles forbid-

ding racial discrimination. in

housing as it did with regard to

racial discrimination by labor

-Continued on Page 2

AMERICAN. CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NEWS

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

ERNEST BESIG .. . Editor :

503 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105, 433-2750

Subscription Rafes -- Two Dollars a Year

Fwenty Cents Per Copy |

Ralph B. Atkinson:

Dr. Alfred Azevedo

Mrs. Judith Balderston

Albert M. Bendich

Leo Borregard

Albert Culhane0x2122

_Mrs. Natalie Dukes

Prof. John Edwards ~

Howard A, Friedman

Robert Greensfelder

Rey. Aron S. Gilmartin

Evelio Grific

Mrs. Zora Cheever Gross

Francis Heisler

Neil F. Horton

Howard H. Jewel

Honorary Treasurer:

Joseph S. Thompson

Honorary Board Member:

Sara Bard Field

Mrs. Gladys Brown

Mrs. Paul Couture

' Mrs. Margaret C. Hayes

Prof. Carlo Lastrucci

John J. Eagan Mrs.,

Joseph Eichler

Dr. H. H. Fisher

Prof. Ernest Hilgard

Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union .

of Northern California

CHAIRMAN: Prof. Van D. Kennedy

VICE-CHAIRMEN: Rabbi Alvin |. Fine

Helen Salz-

SEC'Y-TREAS.: John R: May

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Ernest Besig

GENERAL COUNSEL: Wayne M. Collins

STAFF COUNSEL: Marshall W. Krause

ASST. STAFF COUNSEL and LEGIS. REP.: Paul Halvonik

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: Mrs. Pamela S. Ford

CHAPTER DIRECTOR: Mrs. Marcia D. Lang

Committee of Sponsors

Paul Holmer :

Mes. Mary Hutchinson ae Wallace Stegner

Morse Erskine

Prof. Wilson Record

Dean Robert A. Keller

Prof. David Levin

Gerald D. Marcus

Ephraim Margolin

Prof. John Henry Merryman

Robert L. Nolan, M.D.

Prof. Robert M. O'Neil

Frederick S$. Reimheimer

Clarence E. Rust

John Brisbin Rutherford

Mrs. Alec Skolnick

Stanley D. Stevens

Stephen Thiermann

Cecil Thomas

Donald Vial

Richard J. Werthimer

Dr. Marvin J. Naman

Mes. Theodosia Stewart

Rt. Rey. Sumner Walters

Richard Johnston

Roger Kent

Mrs. Ruth Kingman

Prof. Theodore Kreps

Rey. noeae W. Moon

Norman Reider

Prof Hubert Phillips

Norman Lezin

-and not merely in a

~The Bleed Trinity"

olice eturn 400 Posters

legal Seizure

On March 10 and 11 officers of the San Francisco Police

Department's Park Station entered various stores on Haight

Street and started seizing all copies of a poster drawn by

David Hodges and distributed by "The Blessed Trinity." The

poster had the slogan "Let's Liberate Posters" and its main

attraction for the Police Depart-

ment was a ring of small figures

in various attitudes of frankly-

depicted love making. Several

days previously the police had

made some arrests of clerks and

owners of stores for publicly

Gistributing this poster but the

confiscations in question were

not in connection with any ar-

rests.

Letter to Chief Cahill

The ACLU's reaction to this

blatantly illegal police conduct

was to immediately write to

"Chief Cahill pointing out that

the confiscations were "lawless

acts `in direct defiance of the

United States Constitution and

of a specific ruling recently

made by the Hon. Joseph Ken-

nedy in a case involving "The

Love Book' in which he ruled

that members of the Police De-

partment could not confiscate

material merely because they

believed it to be obscene." The

ACLU's letter pointed out that

the District Attorney of San

Francisco had not sought to

ehallenge Judge Kennedy's rul-

ing on appeal and the District

Attorney had promptly returned

all the materials in question in

that case. The letter continued:

"At a time when there is so

much talk concerning lack of

respect for law and order, it

makes a mockery of our values

to have police officers knowingly

defy the law. Therefore we re-

quest all materials taken by the

-$an Francisco police officers be

ACLU NEWS

APRIL, 1967

`Page 2-

returned to their owners with-

out further ado. We think that

this step is necesary if the San

Francisco Police Department is

serious about respect for law

and order." ;

Prompt Reply

This letter and accompanying

information were released to the

press and the next. day Deputy

Police Chief Al Arnaud called

the ACLU and told staff coun-

sel Marshall Krause that the

posters would be immediately re-

turned. Arnaud stated that the

confiscations were a mistake and

that the Police Department does

not confiscate things. For a

short time the ACLU was the .

proud possessor of 400 allegedly

obscene posters, but they were

soon returned to "The Blessed

Trinity," presumably for evan-

gelical work.

Satisfaction Expressed

In a subsequent letter to Chief

Cahill the ACLU expressed it-

self as very pleased by his

- prompt action and.respect for

the rule of law. The ACLU's

legal position seems to be un-

impeachable on this point. If a

police officer could come in and

confiscate any material he felt

to be in violation of the law

without a search warrant and

"without an arrest there would be

no protection against arbitrary

police action. It is very doubtful

that even when an arrest is

made the police can do more

than take one copy of the al-

leged offending work since this

is all that is necessary as evi-

dence of the offense. If the po-.

lice could seize all available cop-

ies on the making of an arrest,

the circulation of the material

would be prevented until the

- final outcome. of the trial, .per- .

haps many months later after

the material had lost its topical

: value.

High Court Hears

Arguments in

Prop. 14 Case

-Continued from Page 1

unions and de facto segregation

in public schools.

Right te Discriminate

If Prop. 14 becomes part of

California's constitution, a de-

gree.of permanency will be given

to existing racial barriers to

minority groups and patterns of

housing will develop with the

expectation that the practice of

discrimination may continue un-

' restricted in the forseeable fu-

ture. The brief also points out

that the repudiation by Prop.

14 of California's historic policy

of opposing race discrimination

in private and public actions

puts the state in the position of

condoning `race discrimination

"neutral"

position toward racial discrimi-

nation. This is because Prop. 14

purports to add a new section to

Article I of the Constitution of

the State of California. Article I

carries the general caption `"Dec-

laration of Rights' and_ safe-

guards legislative interference

_with the rights of religious lib-

erty and conscience, the privi-

Jege of habeas corpus, the right

to bail, the right to trial by

jury, the right to counsel, the

right to freedom of speech and

press and assembly and petition

for redress of grievances, the

right to a speedy trial and the

prohibition against unreasonable

search and_ seizure. Prop. 14

would add a new "right" - the

"right" to practice race dis-

crimination. The brief states:

"We submit that the state may

not add the right to discrimina-

tion to its Bill of Rights and

then claim `neutrality' on the

subject. Constitutional rights are

respected and revered in this

country as proof of its highest

principles. . . . (Proposition 14)

will inevitably encourage many

Californians to exercise their

new-found `right.' Race discrimi-

nation need no longer be prac-

ticed.in shame in California; it

now bears the

state approval." The brief then

states that the Education Code

and the State Board of Educat-

tion have required that the Cali-

fornia Constitution be taught in

the public schools and that if

Prop. 14 maintains its place in

the Constitution, schools must

teach the "right" to discriminate

on the grounds of race as part

of the public school program.

Difficult Issue

Prop. 14 presents a difficult

issue for the U.S. Supreme Court

in the area of what is prohibited

"state action.' The California

Real Estate Association main-

tains that the state is not doing

any discriminating and any acts

of discrimination are the re-

sults of private decisions which

cannot be ascribed to the state.

Whether the U.S. Supreme Court

will agree that moral encourage-

ment of race discrimination in

housing is prohibited state ac-

tion is a question which will be

answered by the Court's deci-

sion expected some time in May.

Conference

On Privacy

Sat., May 20

Continued from Page 3-

man, a computer expert from

Redondo Beach.

Early Registration Needed

To be held on the State Col-

lege campus, the conference will

register only 750 persons. Early

registration is strongly recom-

mended. Fees are: General, $12

CGincludes banquet) and Student,

$6 (does not include banquet).

Students will be able to listen to

Justice Douglas, however.

The ACLUNC-San Francisco

State CoHege . Conference will

_also: serve.as ACLUNC's annual

meeting. of the general member-

ship and everyone is cordially

` Invited.

imprimatur of-

Fair Housing

March 15 has been a date of distinction for centuries.

Friends of fair-housing will remember it more fondly than

friends of Caesar. On March 15, 1967, the Senate Govern-

mental Efficiency Committee held hearings on S.B. 9,

(Schmitz), the Rumford Fair-Housing Act repealer and S.B.

14 (Schmitz), which would re-

peal all fair-housing laws. Nei-

ther bill was passed out of com-

mittee. After a brief statement

on both sides of S.B. 14, Senator

Alan Short (D-San Joaquin)

moved to table the bill, a voice

vote was had and Committee.

Chairman Eugene McAteer (D-

San Francisco) announced that

the motion to table had received

an affirmative vote. The success-.

ful motion to table probably

means S.B. 14 will not be revived

in this session.

Motion to Study S.B. 9

S.B. 9 did not have quite such

a decisive termination. A motion

to study the substance of the

bill was passed by the commit-

tee. Senator Hugh Burns (D-Fres-

no) voted in favor of that mo-

tion. His vote was a surprise. It

was surmised that he would vote

against the motion, thus defeat-

ing it, and then form a majority

that would release the Rumford

repealer to the Senate floor.

After the vote Burns stated that

although he had voted against

the Rumford Act in 1963, he

felt there might be room for

accommodation and compromise .

in the area of fair-housing and

that the Governmental Effi-

ciency Committee should not act

until it had studied all pro-

posals. Thus a bill introduced in

the Assembly in the latter part

of February takes on added sig-

nificance.

The Bagley Bill

That bill is A.B. 729 (Bagley).

The Bagley bill is, thus far, the

only Rumford "modification"

measure introduced. It would

change procedures followed un-

der the present law a great deal.

Its most important innovations,

however, are in its coverage as-

pects. Under Rumford all hous-

ing accommodations of more

than four units are covered. In

addition, all publicly-financed,

owner-occupied single family

dwelling units and publicly-fi-

nanced housing accommodations

of more than two units come

within the ambit of Rumford

regulation. It is one of the

anomolies of legislative compro-

mise that Rumford extends to

owner-occupied single family

dwelling units when publicly fi-

nanced but not to single family

dwelling units not owner occu-

pied and not at all to duplexes.

Coverage Reduced 20%

Bagley's bill changes coverage

from "more than four units" to

"five or more units." Considered

reflection should convince any-

one that no radical change is

being advanced. But Bagley's bill

goes further and removes the

distinction between privately

and publicly financed housing:

Hence, not only will Rumford

not cover owner occupied single

family dwellings, it will not,

under this proposal, cover any

housing accommodations of less

than five units. Three and four

unit accommodations, although

publicly financed and although

"business establishments" pro-

scribed from discriminating ra-

cially under the Unruh Act,

would not be covered. It is esti-

mated that about twenty per

cent of housing covered under

the Rumford law would no

longer be covered under Bag-

ley's bill.

oe Privacy :

"The Legislature hereby

declares that advances in

`'science and technology have 0x00B0

led to the development of

new devices and techniques

for the purpose of eaves-

dropping upon private com-

munications and that the

invasion of privacy resulting

from the. continual and in-

creasing use of such devices

has created a serious threat

to the free exercise of per-

`sonal liberties and cannot be

tolerated in a free and Civi-

lized society."

So reads the preamble to the

most far-reaching privacy bill

ever introduced.

Unruh Measure |

Authored by Assembly. Speak-

er Jesse Unruh (D-Inglewood),

A.B. 860 would prohibit wire-

tapping or eavesdropping on

any confidential communication

without the consent of all the

parties to the communication.

This would destroy the inspira-

tion for most wire-tapping and

make "legal: eavesdropping" a

misnomer. A.B. 860 would also

make it unlawful to manufac-

ture, sell or possess `any device

which is primarily or exclusively

designed or intended for eaves-

dropping," thereby restoring the

integrity of the martini olive. Be-

sides criminal penalties, the bill

also provides for injunctive re-

lief and civil damage suits. Any

evidence obtained in violation

of the section would be excluded

from "any judicial, administra-

tive, legislative or other pro-

ceeding," instead of the present

rule excluding such evidence

only from criminal proceedings.

-Paul N. Halvow?k

Mid-Peninsula

Chapter Changes

Its By-Laws

The Board of Directors of

the Mid-Peninsula Chapter of

ACLUNC has proposed certain

by-laws changes which received

approval by the Branch Board

of Directors at its meeting of

February, 1967. These changes,

the substance of which follows,

will become effective in 30 days

from publication, providing that

objections are not received from

at least 10 per cent of the Mid-

Peninsula membership.

It is proposed that the number

of Board members be increased

from 15 to 20, and provision is

made that the immediate past

- chairman shall be a member of

the Board ex officio. The quorum

requirement has been set at two

members less than a majority of

the members of the Board.

Three vice-chairmanships have

been deleted, in order to allow

more flexibility in organizational

matters, and the one Vice-chair-

man remaining is assigned re

sponsibility to assist the chair-

man in all phases of his duties.

Four members have been ap-

pointed by the Mid-Peninsula

Chapter Board to fill vacancies

occurring in recent months. New

members `are Peggy Shaw, who

has been acting: for several

months as volunteer secretary to

the Chapter Board, and is now

assuming this position officially;

Fred Caploe, City Atterney of

the city of Mountain View; Ed-

ward Siegel, of the Radiology

Dept. at Stanford University;

and Robert Wier, an attorney

practicing in `Palo Ble one San

Jose: ~ e a

n--

ill

ik-

LD)

"euro-

on

on

he

"a-

nd

so

1c-

ce

ly

ag

ill

of

of

in

ed

of

2S,

7S,

ys

d-

er

od.

St

of

vO

of

al

Lawrence Speiser's Testimony

The following testimony was given by Lawrence Speiser

on March 15, 1967 before the Senate Subcommittee on Ad-

ministrative Practice and Procedure of the Committee on

the Judiciary:

I am Lawrence Speiser, Director of the Washington office

of the American Civil Liberties

Union -a private non-partisan,

non-profit organization which de-

votes its entire resources to the

protection of the Bill of Rights.

Even if we conceded the poten-

tial great usefulness of a Nation-

al Data Center-and we submit.

that proponents of the proposal

~ have not as yet made out a very

compelling case for this - we,

nevertheless, feel grave concern

about the potential threats to

-eivil liberties and privacy -in-

herent in the very concept.

Odious Concept

The establishment of a Fed-

- eral Data Center would create

the machinery for the mainte-

"nance of personal dossiers on a

great many Americans-a con-

cept odious to a free society.

There is no dispute about this,

even from the proponents of the

Bank. They have insisted all

along that in order for the sta-

tistical data stored in the Data

Center to be of value, an ulti-

mate key must be kept some-

where so that the human beings

involved can be identified. They

concede that it would be possible

for all the information stored in

the Bank on a particular indi-

vidual to be retrieved in a pro-

file form.

Unreliable Information

It is not necessary to spell out

to this Committee the palpable

dangers in the government hav-

ing a personal dossier on millions

_ of its citizens. It should only be

noted that not all the danger

relates to abuse of a malicious -

nature by one seeking political

power or other patently un-

worthy ends. The information

stored in the Bank may be a

cause of harm in high-principled

hands. Unfortunately, the great

bulk of information about an in-

dividual is not gathered as the

result of inquiries by skilled gov-

ernment investigators. Rather, it

is often acquired by government

employees of poor judgment, by

private agencies, credit unions,

insurance companies and busi-

nesses. Government agencies

often farm out investigative work

to private firms, and there is a

considerable interchanging of

data among government and pri-

vate sources. Once an unreliable

bit of information makes its way

into a file it forms an indelible

. mark on a person's record. The

individual who is denied the

chance for employment or some .

other opportunity on the basis

of euch information is given no

chance to rebut or disprove it.

Dossiers are compiled, the accu-

racy of which increasingly be-

comes questionable. The com-

puterization of such information

in the Data Bank only com-

pounds the basic abuse.

Highly Personal

Proponents of the Bank have

to date stressed that the Bank

is limited to statistical data, not

of the kind that would lend it-

self to the building of a dossier..

We have great doubt that infor-

mation contained in the files of

some 20-odd federal agencies that

would be placed in the Bank,

`even if it were called "statisti-

eal," would: not contain much

that is indeed of a highly per-

sonal nature that could be harm-

ful in the ways we are talking

about.

In addition, we're concerned

with the very foot-in-the-door.

What assurance have we that

once the Bank is established

there won't be an expansion,

based on the same compelling

efficiency, to include non-sta-

tistical kinds of information?

No Consent for Broad Use

Improperly shared information,

even on a scale far less than

would amount to a dossier, has

obvious implications for harm.

When an individual provides in-

formation to a Federal agency-or

official he is consenting only to

giving this information for a par-

ticular known purpose, whether

it be to permit him to obtain an

FHA loan or to obtain veteran's

benefits. He certainly hasn't con-

sented to this information being

made available to other agencies,

either within or outside the gov-

ernment.

For .example, if he gives a

medical history to a government

doctor, that does not mean that

~he thereby agrees that such per-

sonal information should be

made available to other govern-

ment employees having no real

basis nor need to have access.

We are talking here about the

increasingly recognized indepen-

dent value of privacy, the right

among other things not to have

essentially personal information

made known to others. The giver

of information for a limited

known purpose has the right to

have his private life protected

from the view of others.

-Continued on Page 4

Privacy in a Crowding World

REGISTRATION APPLICATION

Mail to: Faculty Program Center

San Francisco State College, AD 220

1600 Holloway, San Francisco 94132

Mr. :

MVS? ee Dayle phone: is.

Miss :

S NGOVOSS. =. ps ee or ee Oe

street number city zip code ~

I enclose (Se: ) $12 for general (includes banquet) or ($............ ED

$6 for a student registration (banquet not included) in PRIVACY

Burk Foundation.)

. IN A CROWDING WORLD. (Make check payable to The Frederic

Students who, wish to Hena'tne banquet may do so (subject to avail-

ability of space) at the general registration fee of $12.

Morning -

Ast Choice...

20d. Choice...

3d. Choice...

. Advance registration ts urged. No refunds after May 18.

Please select panel (by Roman Numeral) in order of your prefer-

- ence. (Refer to program. on this Paes ye

; Agtevnoon

Ist Choice... 25.22.

2d Choice. 2.28.

a = 30 Choice.... Se fe =

Note: Panel rclerenees granted. on. a: "first-come, first-served- basis. -

Meeting

April 10th

The Berkeley-Albany Chap-

ter of ACLUNC will hold its

annual Nominating Meeting

on Monday, April 10, 8 p.m.,

in the Whittier School Audi-

torium, Lincoln and . Milvia

Streets. -

The meeting will begin

with a brief survey of Chap-

ter activity during the past

year, and a short color film,

"The Great Rights,' an ex-

ample of films being screened

by the Education Committee

for use in schools and organi-

zations.

Nominees for the 1967-68

Chapter Board of Directors

will be introduced. Additional

nominations may be made

from the floor.

Refreshments and a social

hour will follow the meeting.

Madden Case

Tried and

Submitted

The case of William C. Mad-

den, fired veterans' service offi-

cer for San Joaquin County, was

tried last month for 3% days be-

fore visiting Superior Court

Judge Ross Carkeet in San Joa-

quin County Superior Court...

Madden, represented by ACLU

`volunteer attorneys Edwin Balti-

more and Ruth Rathke, takes the

ACLUNC Annual Meeting

The problems raised by i invasions of privacy, such as dis-

cussed by Lawrence Speiser, Director Washington Office of

the National ACLU, and editorially noted in the Christian

Science Monitor (see adjoining columns on this page), will be

among the subjects considered at the ACLUNC-San Fran-

cisco State College conference on

Privacy in a Crowding World,

. May 20.

_ 60 Panelists (c)

Following Professor Alan West-

in's keynote speech, "Privacy in

a Free Society,' more than 60

panelists and moderators will

take up various aspects of the

subject in 12 panels throughout

the day. Justice William O. Doug-

Jas will speak at the banquet on

"Computerized Man."

The program will be as follows:

8:30 a.m.-Registration.

0x00A7:00 a.m.-``Privacy in a Free

Society'-Alan Westin.

10:00 am.-The Goldfish Bowl

(panel): John Edwards, Mod-

erator; Willard Clopton, Ber-

nard Diamond, Donald Garrity,

Ephraim Margolin, Alan West-

in, Respondent.

11:60-12:30-Panels - PRIVACY

AND:

' J-Personal Conduct - Neil

Horton, Moderator; Tim-

othey Haight, David

Telephone: 469-1205

Ephraim Margolin, Geof-

frey Selth.

Ji-Man in the Urban En-

vironment - Aron Gil-

martin, Moderator, Ken-

neth Craik, Mervin

Freedman; Robert Laws,

Gerald Marcus, Philburn

Ratoosh, Robert Sommer.

Jll-Fair Trial, Free Media-

Elsa Knight Thompson,

Moderator;

Brucker, Alexander Bo-

di, George Duschek, Rob-

ert O'Neil, Mel Wax.

as 6

Improper Questions

Certain tests and questionnaires used by the federal gov-

ernment threaten an unjustified invasion of the privacy of

government employees. For several years, Sen Sam J.

Ervin's subcommittee on constitutional rights has kept a

position that the County fired

him because he exercised his

right not to testify against him-

self in an unrelated criminal

case involving his son. The Coun-

ty first maintained that it has a

right to fire him for this reason

but then when their legal con-

tentions were overruled slipped

to some flimsy factual justifica-

tion for Madden's firing and so

the case had to go to trial. A de-

cision is expected in about a

month.

sharp eye open to detect possible infringement of individual -

liberties.

The subcommittee extensively probed the, psychological

testing of federal government employees. It pointed to the

-use of some testing forms which include what many would

consider objectionable questions relating to PeHBION sex, and

other personal matters.

From one test, the following, for example, were to be an-

swered "`true"' or "false": _ a

"Christ performed miracles."

"T pray several times a week."

"T like to talk about sex."

"T am a special agent of God."

More recently, the subcommittee found that various gov-

ernment agencies were using a "report of Medical History"

which includes questions of an extremely personal nature,

some of which have no apparent bearing on the individual' 0x00A7

physical fitness.

After the subcommittee and the American Civil Liberties

Union pressed the matter with the United States Civid Serv-

ice Commission, the commission dropped the form for all

civilian employees and job applicants. But the Defense De-

partment continues to use it for military personnel. |

A "false or dishonest answer' to this questionnaire is

punishable by fine or imprisonment. It was by no means

clear that access to these forms would be strictly limited to

medical. staff. If they were made available to personnel or

security officers, answers irrelevant to physical fitness might

well have resulted in exclusion from government service.

Government must, of course, obtain certain information,

about applicants in order to select able, conscientious, and re-

liable employees. But there are some personal matters which

government has no right to extract from an individual as a.

condition of employment.

We are encouraged that both Gongiese and an organiza-

-- tion dedicated to the preservation of civil liberties have seen

`fit to look into the matter: It deserves COntUINE surveil:

- lance.-Christian Science oe 3/21/67.

Kreeh, Carlo Lastrucci, .

Herbert .

JV-Poverty - David Levin,

Moderator, Albert Ben-

dich, Howard Harawitz,

Jane McKaskle, John Ne-

jedly.

V-Medical and Psychiatric

Care-Howard Fried-

man, Moderator; Arlene

Daniels, Thomas Gonda,

Joseph Karesh, Eric.

Plaut, David S. Pues:

"men.

VI-Behavioral Research -

Leo Borregard, Modera-

tor; Bernard Diamond,

Stanford Lyman, Rob-

ert Sears, Evander

Smith, M, Brewster

Smith.

2:00 p.m.-`Who's Afraid of

George Orwell?" Willard Clop-

ton.

2:30 p.m.-"I Am"-An_Eaves-

dropping Demonstration-Har-

old Lipset.

3:15-5:00-Panels-PRIVACY

AND:

ViI-Complaint to Conviction

-Morse Erskine, Mod-

erator; Sherri Cavan, Jo-

seph Kimble, Jerome

Skolnick, Leonard Ware. .

VII-The Convicted - Donald

Garrity, Moderator; Bev-

erly Axelrod, Dennie

Briggs, Donald Gibbons,

Richard McGee. :

IX-Your: Government Des-

Sier - Jack D. Barchas,

Moderator; Ernest Bes-

ig, Harold Lipset, Socra-

tes Mamakos, Stanley

Rothman, Thomas Ry-

ther.

X-You Under Scrutiny -

Gerald Purmal, Modera-

tor; Duane Anderson,

William Bennett, Mar-

shall Krause, Maurice

Osborne, George Sears.

XI-Schools and Colleges-

Richard Werthimer, Mod-

erator; William Boyd,

Jerome Falk, Edgar

Friedenberg, Nevitt San-

ford, Neil Sullivan.

XiI-Personality and Psycho-

legical Testing-Stephen

Rauch, Moderator, Paul

Heist, Barbara Kirk, Wil-

lard Clopton, Donal Mac-

Intosh, Bernard MclIn-

tosh. .

7:00 p.m.-Banquet. .

8:30 p.m.-``Computerized Man"

-William O. Douglas.

Brochure to Be Mailed

' Space does not permit the

identification here of the numer-

ous participants. This will be pro-

vided in the brochure to be

mailed to ACLUNC members and

subscribers. However, the joint

planning committee of the spon-

sors, headed by Mrs. Emily Skol-

nick (ACLUNC Branch Board

member) and Mrs. Alice Ker-

meen (Director of the Faculty

Program Center, San Francisco

State College), has brought to-

gether a broad array of Bay Area

persons drawn from law, law en-

forcement, penology, labor, medi-

cine, psychiatry, sociology, engi-

neering, teaching, private investi-

gation, government, `and`the com-

munications media. Imported for

the occasion will be Justice Doug-

"Jas, Alan Westin (Columbia Uni-

versity), Willard Glopton (Wash-

ington Post), and Stanley Roth-

-Continued on. vege 2

ACLU NEWS -

"APRIL, 1967

Page 3_

"Un Chant d'Amour"

On March 18 a petition was filed with the United States

Supreme Court seeking review of the decision of the Cali-

fornia courts that Genet's film "Un Chant d'Amour'' was ob-

scene and could be banned for all purposes in California, It

is hoped that before the Court adjourns in June a decision

will be made as to whether or

not a sufficiently important

question under the First Amend-

ment is-presented by California's

banning of the film to merit re-

view by the highest court,

`Injunction Denied

The case, entitled Landau v.

Fording, started over two years

ago when the Berkeley Police

Department threatened to arrest

Sol Landau if he showed the

/ Genet film within the City of

Berkeley. The film had previ-

ously been shown many times in

San Francisco and Berkeley and

been used primarily as a fund-

raising method for various civil

rights groups and the San Fran-

cisco Mime Troupe. Rather than

risk arrest and confiscation of

the film, Landau came to the

ACLU and volunteer attorneys

Neil Horton and Albert M. Ben-

dich filed an action in Alameda

County Superior Court seeking

to enjoin the Berkeley police

from making any arrests and to

have it declared that the film

was not obscene. After a trial

in which many experts testified

as to the artistic merit and so-

cial significance of the film, Su-

perior Court Judge George W.

Phillips, Jr., chose to disregard

the testimony of all of the wit-

nesses and found the film ob-

scene for all purposes and said

that any showing of the film

would be in violation of the law.

An appeal was taken to the Dis-

trict Court of Appeal which af-

firmed Judge Phillips' holding

and the California Supreme

Court, three Justices dissenting,

refused to grant a hearing in

the case.

Three Questions Raised

The petition taking the case

before the U.S. Supreme Court

was prepared by Marshall W.

Kraase; ACLUNC staff counsel,

and Neil F. Horton. It raises

three questions: (1) Are the

tcial and appellate courts free

te disregard the unanimous testi-

mony of all witnesses and ex-

perts that the film possessed

Significant social and artistic

importance, because, in the opin-

ions of the judges of these

eourts, the film is. utterly with-

eut social importance? (2) Were

the California courts correct in

applying the Ginzburg "pander-

ing" test to this case? (3) Is "Un

Chant d'Amour' obscene under

ati conceivable

aad can Califernia ban its exhi-

bition under all

circumstances?

Prison Inmates

The petition goes into some

detail in describing both the

film and its author, Jean Genet.

Genet made the film in 1950;

it is silent and lasts about 30

circumstances |

conceivable

themselves (as

man love." The petition contin-

ues: "There is no coyness in the

film; when Genet wishes to in-

form his audience that men iso-

lated in prison cells resort to

masturbation, he shows it hap-

pening. However, under Genet's

direction the sexual acts . de-

picted far transcend their sexual

nature; they are not ends in

sex acts are

treated in pornography) but a

means to communication of

ideas far removed from sexual

gratification. For this reason, the

film is neither erotic nor por-

nographic but merely graphic in

its treatment of a segment of

life."

Special Audience

The California courts have said

that the "average man" would

think this film appealed to a

shameful interest in sex. The pe-

tition points out that the film

is not intended for the average

man but is intended for the

intellectually active.and ar-

tistically attuned persons and

that this is the audience which

Mr. Landau was attempting to

reach and did reach in distribut-

ing the film. "The fact that an

`average man' may be struck by

the sexual candor of the film and

be blind to its deeper meanings,

is no sufficient reason to pre-

vent communication of these

meanings to those who are pre-

pared to accept them." The pe-

tition continues: "Nor is the

treatment of sex more `candid'

than customary among people

familiar with current trends in

art, literature and motion pic-

tures, although it certainly is

more `candid' than the neighbor-

f

minutes. Its theme is the real

and dream worlds of prison in-

mates and the artist has inter-

" Spersed views of the fantasy

lives of the inmates with their

real lives in a manner which

purposely blurs the distinction.

The petition points out that the

use of ambiguity and fantasy is'

well-established in artistic crea-

tion of the highest calibre and

enables the artist to "widen the

subject of the film far beyond

prison life to speak meaning-

fully: about the pains of human

isolation and the need for hu-

ACLU NEWS

APRIL, 1967

Page 4

hood movie." The petition points

out that the very candor of the

film seems to remove it from the

fantasy world of romance and sex

so often depicted in popular

culture. Genet's fantasy is not

escape but a means of depicting

reality.. :

Expert Witnesses

The witnesses who testified on

behalf of the film (there was no

testimony: against the film) in-

cluded Dr. Bernard Diamond,

psychiatrist and professor of law

and criminology who stated that

the film had very important so-

cial implications and significance

The Proposed

Federal

Data Center

Continued from Page 3-

Areas of Intrusion

Compounding the problem is

the fact that the government to-

-day is collecting a good deal of

information it should not be col-

lecting. We have long opposed

inquiries by government into

areas where they have no le-

gitimate business, such as the

kinds of questions asked on per-

_ sonality tests and the questions

about political and other organi-

zational affiliations. If in the first

instance such information were

not gathered, there would be

~ far less concern about a National

Data Center.

Press Release

We have noted with interest

the press release of February 27,

1967, by Congressman Cornelius

E. Gallagher (D-N.J.) concerning

his meetings with Director of the

Budget Charles Schultze on the

proposal for a National Data

Center. According to the release,

Director Schultze has agreed that

the proposal on the Data Bank.

submitted to the President will

recommend that only summary

tabulations for the great part

unidentifiable with an individual

are stored with the Bank. That

remains to be clarified. We urge

this Subcommittee to take up

these changes. Their adoption

would be greatly welcomed and

would present us with an en-

tirely different measure. In any

event, we would welcome an

evaluation of the proposal by a

panel of constitutional lawyers,

computer experts, representa-

tives of Congress and others as

mentioned in the press release.

We hope it would include those

who have been raising these is-

sues of civil liberties and privacy.

Safeguards Not Spelled Out

Proponents of the Center vir-

tually, without exception, have

agreed that it, indeed, contains

inherent threats of the kind

we've suggested. They've insisted

their devotion to the values we're

discussing are no less than any.

`man's, and they have advocated

that safeguards, technological, le-

gal, administrative, be devised to

cope with the dangers. Unfortu-_

nately, no one to date has to

in the fields of criminology and .

penology. He felt that the isola-.

tion of prisoners was something

which was hard to communicate

to students but that with this

film such communication was

made. Susan Sontag, novelist and

film. critic, praised the film as

"beautifully made" and "well

photographed." She found that

the work had both historical and

artistic significance. The testi-

mony of many other expert

witnesses concerning the film is

detailed in the petition making

a strong case concerning its

artistic merit and social signifi-

cance. :

Any Exhibition Criminal

The petition points out that,

despite this unanimous testi-

mony, the law now standing in

California is that any exhibition

of "Un Chant d'Amour" would

be a criminal offense, It could

not be exhibited to a group of

film. experts interested in its

technical perfection; it could not

be exhibited to a group of law-

yers and penologists interested in

penal reform; and it could not be

exhibited te a group of scholars

our knowledge produced a model

setting forth precisely the safe-

guards that would be _ effective.

Danger of Private Use

I shall not take the time to

specify the kinds of problems

such safeguards must cope with.

It will be sufficient to say that

we are concerned with proper

controls on what goes into the

Bank as well as the obvious con-

cern with improper retrieval and

release. There is the danger that

data gathered by the government

will find its way into the hands

of private firms where it will be

improperly used against an in-

dividual. Moreover, the reverse

will also occur: thus, for example,

a government agency, itself un-

authorized to administer a poly-

graph test to job applicants, will

have available the results of such

a test. administered to the indi-

vidual when he applied for em-

ployment with @ private company.

Prohibited results will be

achieved in an indirect fashion. |

When any official determination

is made on the basis of irrelevant

information which that official

has no right to consider, the

end result is a deprivation of the

interested in everything Genet

has done, whether good or bad.

Such a result does not seem

compatible with freedom of com-

munication protected under the

First Amendment. The Genet

film may be powerful medicine

but it is also able to uncover

certain truths about human be-

ings which should not be de-

nied. At stake in the case is

whether we are strong enough

and brave enough to face the

truth about ourselves as seen

through the understanding of

one of the great artists of our

time. (A few extra copies of the

Petition are available at the

ACLUNC office at $1 each.)

year.

three-year terms.

the ACLU,

(R)@ ce . : :

Your Nominations, Please

Elections to the Board of Directors of the ACLUNC

are governed by a section of the By-Laws which provide

that, "Every year, the April issue of the ACLU NEWS

shall carry an invitation to the Union's membership to

suggest names to the nominating committee, and such |

names must reach the Union's office not later than.

April 30." The Board has a maximum membership of 30

at large members who are eligible to serve two conse-

cutive full three-year terms, after which they become

ineligible for one year. The terms of the 30 at large

members are staggered so that ten offices expire each

There are presently two vacancies on the board, one

in the class of 1967 and the other in the class of 1968.

Four other vacancies will arise because the incumbents

are ineligible for re-election, since they will have com-

pleted two full consecutive three- -year terms on October

31, 1967. The four persons are Treasurer John R. May, |

Dr. Alfred Azevedo, Clarence E. Rust and Donald Vial.

For the past two years, the Rev. Aron S. Gilmartin

has been serving an unexpired term. He is now eligible

for election to a full term. Former Board chairman

Howard A, Friedman, attorney Gerald D. Marcus, and,

Prof. Robert M. O'Neil, who have filled one year vacan-

cies on the Board, are also eligible for election to full

One office in the Class of 1967 is -

filled -by Life Member and Vice-Chairman Helen Salz,

one of the founders of the branch in September 1934. -

The By-Laws also provide that, "In addition to the .

foregoing method of proposing names to the Nominating

Committee, members may make nominations directly to

the Board of Directors in the following manner: Not

later than August 1 of each year, nominations may be

submitted by the membership directly to the Board of |

Directors, provided each nomination be supported by

the signatures of 15 or more members in good standing

to be accompanied by a summary of qualifications and

the written consent of the nominee."

Please send your suggestions for Board members to

593 Market Street, San Francisco, Calif.

94105, giving as much biographical information about

your candidate as possible. In making your suggestions, |

please bear in mind that Board members must be ready

to defend the civil liberties of ALL persons without dis-

tinction; that they are to attend noon meetings in San

Francisco the second Thursday of each month except

` August, besides serving on committees, and, of COULSE,

they must be members of the ACLUNC.

' The nominating committee, to be appointed oy Chair-

man Van Dusen Kennedy on April 13, will be composed

of two Board and three non-Board members. _

individual's civil liberties.

Crux of the Matter

Here is the crux of the matter.

Unless and until a specific pro-

posal is made which spells out

"what the National Data Center

will collect, and hold, and what

specific safeguards will be built

in, it is our belief that Congress,

representing the people, must in-

sist that no affirmative action be

taken toward this end.

Indeed, in view of the grave

threats involved in the Data

it appears to_

Bank. proposal, .

ws that perhaps a closer look

should be taken at the glossed-

over question of the very need

for the Bank. The proponents of

the Bank have the burden of

demonstrating a social and eco-

nomic value significant enough

to have a major impact on the

effectiveness and finances of the

government,

Assuming such a demonstra:

tion can be made, the proponents

must demonstrate their Data

Bank can be made secure with

safeguards, in preserving the

rights of privacy of those who are

the ultimate subjects of the cen-

ter.

Eternal Electrical Impulses

Unless this is done, we wiil

find that the barn door has been

left wide open. It is always dif-

ficult to retrace governmental

steps, particularly when large

sums have been expended. How-

ever, the stake here is large;

the right of a free people to re-

main free, unencumbered by the

knowledge that for each indi-

vidual, Big Brother has an elec-

tronic file collecting every tidbit

of information. There would be

no escape. No mistakes would

ever be undone. Skeletons in the

clesets would always be there,

only they would be compactly

and. efficiently transferred inte

eternal electrical impulses on

tape.

Efficiency is not the only hall-

mark of good government. There

are other values in a society

dedicated to the most compre-

hensive right of its citizens, fhe

right to be let alone." -

The first right of @ citizer

Is the right

To be responsible

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA -

Patron Membership ee ee

Sustaining Membership ...-- 1. ccc cc eves cc es

Business and Professional Membership .........ee00%

Family Membership

Associate Membership=. 0. sso eee swe we ee ses

Annual Membership-

TODAY

151

JOIN

30

25

ee 15.

10

cee 0G FTF GF OCH HEHEHE HH HHO EHE THE S S 8

Student Memberships. 56 6 io cce es hs ceca ewe ec Ss

ACLU News Subscription veetteeeeeesenere eee es $200

NAME.

ADDRESS and ZIP CODE...

TELEPHONE NUMBER. os es

er eseeeerne

CO FCSCSCHCHSCHHEHOHSHLHOHABHHEHHSEHRHHSOHHTFHHFHHHHEHHHEHHSHSHEHHHEHKHHROODS

eooeeeeveee see Bees 09849904408

~ "AMT.-ENCLOSED. 2.600000

"503 ce Sc

San Francisco, 94105