vol. 34, no. 9
Primary tabs
_ American
Civil Liberties
Union
olume XXXIV
SAN FRANCISCO, SEPTEMBER, 1969
No. 9
Police Raid
Movie Theatres,
Arrest Patrons
Last month the San Francisco Police Department, under
the direction of Ed Nevin, intrepid leader of the vice squad,
began raiding San Francisco's "nudie"' movie houses, arrest-
ing the managers and arresting the patrons. The managers
of the movie houses had, in recent months, become inured to
these arrests but the arresting
of patrons was an innovation.
The managers were arrested un-
der the state obscenity law but
the patrons were arrested under
a local ordinance which prohibits
visiting a "disorderly house."
Two theatre owners brought
actions in the Federal District
_ Court in which they requested
an injunction prohibiting the San
Francisco Police from "harass-
ing" them and, specifically, pro-
hibiting the arrest of movie ex-
hibitors until after an adversary
hearing has been held addressed
to the question whether the
movies are in fact obscene.
Patrons Defended
At the hearing on the man-
agers' motion for a temporary
restraining order, Paul Halvonik
and volunteer attorney Jerome
Falk appeared as friends-of-the-
court on behalf of the patrons.
When Federal District Judge
Alfonso J. Zirpoli indicated that
he would not issue a temporary
order prohibiting the police from
arresting the theatre managers,
Halvonik suggested that the
Court issue a nairower order
which would prohibit the police
from arresting patrons at a thea-
tre, When the City refused to
agree to abate the patron raids
until there could be a full hear-
ing on the matter, Judge Zirpoli
announced that he would "issue
an order along the lines sug-
gested by the American Civil
Liberties Union." The order was
issued and a full hearing on a
request for a permanent injunc-
tion will be heard shortly.
Reasons for Challenge
In anticipation of the hearing -
for an injunction, ACLUNC has
filed a brief, prepared by Falk,
Halvonik and Assistant Staff
Counsel Charles Marson, contend-
ing that the arrest of movie pat- ~
rons is unconstitutional for three
different reasons: :
(1) Under the decisions of the
United States Supreme Court, no
obscenity law is valid that does
not limit obscenity offenses to
offenses that are "knowingly"
done. In a case where a book
seller is charged with distribut-
ing obscenity, for example, it
must be established that he knew
the matter was obscene. As the
Supreme Court has explained it:
"The Constitution requires proof
of scienter [{ie., guilty knowl-
edge} to avoid the hazard of self-
censorship of constitutionally
protected material and to com-
pensate for the ambiguities in-
herent in the definition of ob-
scenity." This tendency to self-
censorship is acute in the situa-
{ton where a patron of the thea- ~
tre thinks he will be subject to
arrest if he views an obscene
film or play. He will tend to con-
fine his viewing to those films he
knows are permissible and with-
out having viewed the films he
will be hard put to know, for
certain, what films are imper- -
missible. The patron will have to
limit himself to those presenta-
tions widely known to be bland
or know that he is subjecting
himself to arrest.
(2) The state has no interest
in insuring the purity of peoples'
minds. Earlier this year the
United States Supreme Court
held that the state cannot make
it a crime to possess and view
obscene matter in the confines of
one's own home because "the as-
sertion that the state has: the
right to control the moral con-
tent of a person's thoughts .
is wholly inconsistent with the
philosophy of the First Amend-
ment." Thus while the state can
prohibit the exhibition of ob-
scenity it may not prohibit the
act of viewing obscenity.
(3) Local municipalities may
not enact obscenity laws. The ar-
rests of the patrons were made
pursuant to a municipal code that
prohibits visitations to a `dis-
orderly house." As enforced by
the San Francisco Police the
"disorderly house" section is
being used as an obscenity law.
Under the California Constitu-
tion, once the legislature has
adopted a comprehensive code of
regulation in a particular field,
local municipalities are prohi-
bited from adopting "supplemen-
tary" legislation, When the state
has "pre-empted" a d.eid there
is no room for local laws. Nu-
merous cases have held that the
state legislature has pre-empted
the area of obscenity and that
there is no room for a local law
prohibiting "obscene" activities. .
Loitering Law
Challenged
Representing a group of Black
Panthers who were arrested for
selling their newspapers in San
Francisco's East Bay Terminal,
Staff Counsel Paul Halvonik has
filed a brief in the Municipal
Court challenging the constitu-
tionality of California's basic
anti-loitering law. The law pro-
vides:
"Every person who commits
any of the following acts shall
be guilty of disorderly con-
duct, a misdemeanor: . , . (e)
Who loiters or wanders upon
the streets or from place to
place without apparent reason
or business and who refuses to
identify himself and to account
for his presence when request-
ed by any peace officer so to
do, if the surrounding circum-
stances are such as to indicate
to a reasonable man that the
public safety demands such
identification."
Reasons for Challenge
ACLUNC contends the law vio-
lates the Fifth Amendment, by
requiring a person to incrimi-
nate himself; the Sixth Amend-
ment, because a person must
speak before consulting with
counsel; the Fourteenth Amend-
ment, because it is unconstitu-
tionally vague; the Fourth
Amendment, because it provides
for seizure of a person without
reasonable cause; the Ninth
Amendment, because it is an in-
vasion of privacy; and the First
Amendment, because it per-
mitted, by its broad sweep, the
infringement of afl exercise of
free expression and because it
requires persons to. identify
themselves while exercising the
right of free expression, thus
violating the First Amendment's
right of anonymity.
All-Chapter Conference
Saturday,
October 4
On Saturday, October 4, ACLUNC members involved in
Chapter activity will participate in an all-day Conference, The
agenda for the Conference will include:
a) Financing the Chapter operation
b) Building Chapter membership and participation
c) Workshops on topics of current community interest,
such as:
1-police practices
2-student rights
3-education of the public
4--unequal protection of the law.
The Conference will allow Chapters to share each other's
experiences and also to be briefed by Branch Staff. Partici-
pants should come away from the Conference with a significant
amount of material to help them strengthen their Chapters and
Chapter programs within the coming year.
All members of Chapter Boards and those active on Chapter
committees are urged to attend, as are all Branch Board mem-
_ bers, Other ACLUNC members especially interested in attend-
ing will be welcome, facilities permitting and should notify
Carol Weintraub at the Branch office (telephone 433-2'750)
if they wish te attend. Lunch will be arranged for a minimal
fee ($1.50) and a packet of materials will be sent to all who
return the coupon below.
The Conference will be held on Saturday, October 4, from
10:00 a.m, to 4:30 p.m, Those planning to attend are advisea
to contact the chairman of their local Chapter AND. return the
form below te the ACLUNC office. The Conference will be
held at the Friends House, 2160 Lake Street, San Francisco.
Miss Carol Weintraub
ACLUNC
503 Market Street
San Francisco, Ca, 94105
September, 1969
I plan to participate in the Chapter Conference on Saturday,
October 4, I am a member of the ._.........cccccccceeceeeee Chapter,
and particularly interested in discussions relating to the fol-
lowing matters:........000.000000000.....
fo want you to order a lunch for me (at $1.50).
(do) (do not)
(Name)...........
ACLUNC Asks
Challenge on
Book Censorship
San Francisco's High School District is planning a course
in Black Studies for the fall semester. As supplementary
texts for the courses, the governing board selected two works
by contemporary black authors: Soul on Ice, a collection of
essays and letters by Eldridge Cleaver, and "The Dutchman,
a play by LeRoi Jones. By law
the power to select supplemen-
tary texts is vested exclusively in
local governing boards. This law,
however, did not deter Max Raf-
ferty, State Superintendent of
Public Instruction, Declaring the
works "blatantly obscene," Dr.
Rafferty announced that he
would attempt to revoke the cre-
dential of any teacher who used
the books in a classroom,
Jenkins Capitulates
A week after Dr. Rafferty's an-
nouncement, Dr. Robert E. Jen-
kins, Superintendent of Schools,
capitulated to Rafferty and: an-
nounced that the books would be
removed from the courses. Jen-
kins conceded that this action |
was being taken with the knowl-
edge that Dr. Rafferty would
probably not be able to make
good on his credential-revocation
threat. Jenkins said, however,
that he did not want to subject
his teachers to a legal struggle
over their credentials and that,
therefore, he was not only remov-
ing the two books but. inviting
Rafferty's staff to come in and
review other texts used in the
San Francisco Schools.
ACLUNCE Letter
In response to Dr, Jenkins' an-
nouncement, Staff Counsel Paul
Halvonik sent him the following
letter:
"Max Raffert"'s statement of
last week that, in spite of his
often declared support for local
control of schools, he would ar-
rogate to himself the power to
censor San Francisco School
books was, to us, deeply disturb-
ing. _
"Even more disturbing is the
discovery that the San Francisco
Schools are submitting to this in-
timidation by banning books that
Dr. Rafferty deems unwholesome
and inviting his staff to place
their imprimatur on books be-
fore they are used.
"You have decided to subject
a generation of San Francisco
students to an education limited
to Rafferty-endorsed ideas even
though your own counsel has
advised you that Dr. Rafferty
probably has no power to revoke
the credentials of teachers who
use books disliked by Dr. Raffer-
ty. The reason given for your ac-
tion is that you are protecting
your teachers from losing their
employment while litigating the
right of San Francisco students
to read locally approved texts.
That reason is, we think, inade-
quate.
"First of all, why not let the
individual teacher decide wheth-
er he wishes to submit to Max
Rafferty's censorship or chal-
lenge it? When the school makes
that decision for the teacher it
smacks of paternalism, Secondly,
why not bring suit to enjoin Dr.
Rafferty from unlawfully inter-
_ fering with the San Francisco
schools? Frankly, we prefer this
second course. We are afraid that
_ Dr. Rafferty, emboldened by his
ability to blow away the First
Amendment in San_ Francisco
with a simple wag of the tongue,
will dash about the state snuffing
out academic freedom wherever
he perceives heresy. Moreover,
this second course has the ad-
vantage of challenging Dr, Raf-
ferty's censorship and, at the
same time, protecting teachers
- from the threat of credential-
revocation.
"We urge you to reconsider
your decision and resist Dr. Raf-
ferty's crude attempt at censor-
ship. The American Civil Liber-
ties Union will fully support your
efforts to repel this assault upon
academic freedom."
As of this writing, Dr. Jenkins
has yet to reply. Mayor Alioto
and the San Francisco Chronicle,
however, have endorsed the sug-
gestion that suit be brought to
enjoin Rafferty's unlawful action.
"Lost Soldier"
Must Serve
More Time
Private Richard Beaty, who
spent eleven months at home in
Porterville because the Army
told him to go to Fort Lewis,
Washington, but first to go home
and await a reporting date, must
make up the "bad time."
Although he contacted the Army
three times during this period
and each time was told to go
home and await orders, Federal
Judge William T. Sweigert ruled
this month that he was under a
continuing duty to seek a clarifi-
cation of his status.
Beaty was represented by
ACLUNC in a habeas corpus pro-
ceeding seeking his discharge.
The decision is being appealed,
Berkeley Barb at
Litigation Continues
In July, when Berkeley Munic-
ipal Court Judge George Brunn
held that the Alameda District
Attorney could not, constitution-
ally, prosecute Berkeley Barb
editor Max Scherr for publishing
"obscenity" unless it was prepar-
ed to charge that the entire news-
paper, in which a picture offen-
sive to the district attorney ap-
peared, was obscene, he gave the
district attorney ten days in
which to file an amended com-
plaint. The district attorney did
file an amended complaint charg-
ing that the entire March 21
issue of the Berkeley Barb was
obscene, Scherr's attorney, Staff
Counsel Paul Halvonik, has now
challenged the sufficiency of the
new complaint, the third that the
district attorney has filed in this
matter.
In his demurrer Halvonik con-
tends that-the obscenity charge
"would be laughable if the de-
fendant were not facing a crim-
inal charge. But the defendant is
facing a criminal charge and the
criminal complaint is.a very dis-
turbing and alarming frivolity."
Halvonik goes on to point out
that the primary theme of the
paper does not deal with sex at
all. The primary content of the
paper is political and those polit-
ical articles, since they attempt
to express ideas, are not "utterly
without redeeming social impor-
tance" and hence the Barb, taken
as a whole, is not obscene.
Argument on the challenge to
the latest complaint filed by the
district attorney will be heard in
the middle of this month before
Judge Brunn,
Due Process
Highest Court
Asked to Review
Security Case
The Supreme Court of the
United States has been asked to.
invalidate a Department of De-
fense "security clearance investi-
gation procedure."
The petition to the Court, pre-
pared by Staff Counsel Paul Hal-
vonik, points out that at the in-
vestigation hearing one must an-
swer all questions posed by the
investigator and will have his
security clearance revoked if he
declines, on any grounds what-
ever, to answer a question. More-
over, the hearing contains none
of the rudiments of due process.
There is no requirement of
written specification of charges;
no opportunity, consequently, to
reply to such charges in writing;
no opportunity to confront one's
accusers; no right of cross. ex-
amination; no notice as to the
burden of proof; no review of
the proceedings.
The case involves Dexter.
Shoultz,. a Lockheed employee
who has held his security clear-
_ance for thirteen years and re-
fused, on advice of Executive Di-
rector Ernest Besig, to answer
questions propounded during
such an investigation. Shoultz's
security clearance was supsended
but reinstated when Federal Dis-
trict Judge Robert Peckham held
the procedure invalid.
The United States Court of Ap-
peals reversed Judge Peckham,
holding that the investigation
need not contain due process
guarantees because, if Shoultz
would answer all questions, he
would receive a hearing with due
process guarantees before his
clearance could be finally re-
voked.
Halvonik urges the Supreme
Court to reverse the Court of Ap-
peals decision on the ground that
it is at war with the concept of
due process. "Due Process,' he
contends, "is not a governmental
ritual to be performed as an anti-
climatic appeal from an unfair
hearing."
Criminal
Complaints
Are Dismissed
During the crisis over the
People's Park in Berkeley, Gov-
ernor Reagan, by means of
"emergency regulations,' made
it a misdemeanor to use a loud-
speaker in the City of Berkeley,
to assemble in the City of Berke-
ley or to "loiter" in the City of
Berkeley. Staff counsel Paul Hal-
vonik brought an action in the
Federal District Court seeking
an injunction against the Gov-
ernor's regulations. On the day
before the federal hearing was
scheduled, the Governor repeal-
ed his regulations and the Fed-
eral District Court, quite natural-
ly, refused to issue an injunction
against regulations no longer in
existence. Halvonik then shifted
his attack to the defense of per-
sons arrested for violating the
regulations. Demurrers to the
criminal complaints charging vio-
lations of the Governor's regula-
tions were filed. Rather than
reply to the demurrers, the Ala-
meda District Attorney dismissed
charges against all persons ar-
rested pursuant to the "emer-
gency regulations."
Can You Help
Pvt. Sood? ;
The Army may parole Nesrey
Dean Sood first of the Presidio
27 convicted of ``mutiny," if he
can demonstrate that a job will
await him upon his release from
Fort Leavenworth. :
Anyone who may be able to
provide employment for Sood |
should notify ACLUNC Staff
| Counsel Paul Halvonik in writing.
ACLU NEWS
SEPTEMBER, 1969
Page 2
Sixth Amendment
Court of Appeal
Denies Speedy
Trial for Minors
The California Court of Appeal
has held that Juveniles will not
receive the benefit of a statute
which requires the prosecution
- to bring a case to trial within 45
days after arraingnment.
The case involves Cindy Lou
Cox, a minor, who was charged
with failure to stop after an ac-
cident involving property dam-
age, Her trial date was set five
months from her arraignment.
An adult not brought to trial
within 45 days would have the
charges dismissed but the Court
of Appeal, with the simple state-
ment that "the statutory pro-
visions relating to speedy trial do
not purport to be applicable to
juvenile proceedings," has held
that Cindy Cox must stand trial.
Volunteer ACLUNC attorney
Steven Hallert is preparing a
petition asking the Supreme
Court of California to review
and reverse the Court of Appeal
decision.
Equal Protection
Fight for Free
Transcripts
Goes On
Notwithstanding the U.S.
Supreme Court's recent decision
in Williams v, Oklahoma, hold.
ing that the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment requires the state fur-
nish a free transcript on appeal
to an indigent misdemeanor de-
fendant, the San Francisco Su-
perior Court has denied a free
transcript to Barry Biderman and.
Joy Magezis, students at San
Francisco State College.
- The two were convicted of
"loitering around a school" after-
putting on a play (in a park near
a school) which portrayed po-
lice in an ungenerous light.
ACLUNC Staff Counsel Paul
Halvonik, who represented the
defendants at the trial, brought
a mandamus action to compel
provision of the transcript. It was
this petition that was denied.
ACLUNC plans to file another
mandamus action in the Court
of Appeal.
Support for
Carmel
Leafleter
ACLUNC, joining Carmel at-
torney Herbert A. Schwartz, has
asked the Superior Court of Mon-
terey County to reverse the con-
viction of Schwartz's client, Ro-
ger Lorenz.
Lorenz was arrested last Sep-
tember while passing out hand-
bills at the foot of Carmel's
-Ocean Avenue. Lorenz was sub-
sequently convicted for the of-
fense of "interfering" with the
movement of traffic.
Staff Counsel Paul Halvonik
has filed a_ friend-of-the-court
brief on Lorenz's behalf main-
taining that the arrest and con-
viction violated the First Amend-
ment to the United States Con-
stitution. Streets and sidewalks,
the brief argues, are the prin-
cipal forum of expression for the
poor, the unpopular and others
who do not have access to the
mass media. Accordingly, Halvo-.
nik contends, any regulation of
leafleting is constitutionally sus-
pect, particularly a regulation
which permits a person to be
criminally punished because of
the reaction of his audience. Lo-
renz allegedly interfered with
traffic when occupants of ve-
hicles slowed down to accept the
handbills. If traffic was substan-
tially hindered, the police should
have directed traffic to move on
rather than arresting Lorenz.
ACLU Suit Tests
Wiretaps by FBI
Of Groups in U.S.
The ACLU has filed suit in
the U. S. District Court in Wash-
ington, D. C. challenging the
Federal government's use of elec-
tronic surveillance to gather evi-
dence in `domestic security' cases.
The suit specifically asks the
court to prohibit the use of wire-
taps against nine civil rights and
antiwar groups and against eight
radicals charged with conspiring
to incite violence at last sum-
mer's Democratic National Con-
vention in Chicago.
It names U. S. Attorney Gen-
eral John N. Mitchell and Fed-
eral Bureau of Investigation Di-
rector J. Edgar Hoover as de-
fendants and asks the court to
bring criminal proceedings
against them and their agents for
past surveillances.
Freedom of the Press
Newsvendors |
Busted'; Charge
Dropped
Robert Altman and Robin Sul-
livan were selling "The Resist-
ance," a civilian underground,
anti-draft newspaper, in the Hills-
dale Shopping Center in San Ma-
teo when they were told to leave.
Upon their refusal, they were
arrested under a San Mateo or-
dinance making it illegal to "re-
main ... upon any real proper-
ty ... without the consent of the
owner ,.."
ACLUNC agreed to defend the
two vendors, pointing out that
the right to sell literature in a
shopping center is protected by
the First Amendment, and that
in any event the ordinance was
hopelessly overbroad. After dis-
cussions with the City Attorney,
the charges were dropped.
. "tothe Editer
Peoples' Park March
Dear Editor:
In response to the letter of
H. F. M. in the August ACLU
News, and to the discussion of
the Berkeley - Albany Chapter's
participation in the Memorial
Day march in the July News, the
action of the Chapter's Board of
Directors should again be clari-
fied: our participation in the
march was not in support of the
People's Park as such. The Chap-
ter's Beard members were fully
aware of the fact that the con-
troversy over who would use and
develop the land in question was
not a civil liberties matter. Dur-
ing our discussion of the crisis,
we never considered taking a
position on the park.
Our decision to march arose
out of a deep concern that civil
liberties, and First Amendment
guarantees, were in serious jeo-
pardy fer that two-week period,
-and that we needed to physically
demonstrate our right to peace-
ably assemble. It was in a sense
an enactment of our faith-or
hope-that our First Amendment
rights did indeed still exist.
We marched in a group with
uniform signs carrying but one
message: the words of the First
Amendment. We carried hand-
outs stating our purpose in par-
ticipating: support of the First
Amendment. Thousands marched,
and not all for a single reason.
Many participated, as we did,
because they felt in exercising
our Constitutional rights we help
to preserve them. |
H. F. M. states that such ac-
tions as the B-A Chapter Board's
will change the character and
the nature of the organization.
Without debating this thesis at
this point, I think it raises ques-
tions of broad concern which
need further discussion, hopeful-
ly in the News. Such discussion
-the sign of an involved mem-
bership-should be encouraged.
Diane Schroerluke, Berkeley
(A
Ss.
Your Nominations, Please
Election to the Board of Directors of the ACLUNC
of members at-large is governed by a section of the By-
Laws which provides that, "Every year, the September
issue of the ACLU NEWS shall carry an invitation to
the Union's membership to suggest names to the nom-
inating committee, and such names must reach the Un-
ion's office not later than September 30 in order to re-
ceive consideration."
30 At-Large Members
_ The Board has a maximum membership of 30 mem-
sers at-large who are eligible to serve two consecutive
full three-year terms, after which they become ineligible
ior oue year. The terms of the 30 members at-large are
staggered so that ten offices become vacant each year.
This year, two incumbents, attorney Leo E. Borre-
gard, who practices in San Francisco and resides in
Berkeley, and John Brisbin Rutherford, structural en-
gineer of Los Altos are ineligible for re-election since
they have both served two conscutive three-year terms.
Four incumbents have been serving unexpired one-
year terms and are now eligible for election to three-
year terms. They are Dr. Alfred J. Azevedo, educator
and resident of Tiburon; Jerome B. Falk, Jr., who re-
sides in Berkeley and practices law in San Francisco;
Prof. Mare A. Franklin of Stanford Law School, who
resides in Portola Valley; and Prof. John Searle of the
University of California, Berkeley. Two incumbents
have served unexpired terms of two years and con-
sequently are eligible for election to three-year terms.
They are Dr. Price M. Cobbs, San Francisco psychiatrist,
and Mrs. Esther Pike of San Francisco, who is engaged
in civie activities. The following two board members
have each served one three-year term and are eligible
for election to a second successive three-year term: Prof.
Van Dusen Kennedy of the University of California,
Berkeley, former board chairman and now vice-chair-
man of the board, and Dr. Robert L. Nolan of Oakland,
a pediatrician and also a lawyer
In addition to the eight positions to which board
members are eligible for re-election for terms expiring
in 1973,~ two vacancies will have to be filled in the
Class of '73, one in the Class of '71 (arising from the
resignation of attorney Gerald D. Marcus of San Fran-
cisco and Palo Alto).
Alternate Method of Nomination
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 January 2 of each year, nominations may be
subinitted by the membership directly.to the Ruard of jf
Directors, provided each nomination be supported by -
the signatures of 15 or more members in good standing
and be accompaied by a summary of qualifications
and the written consent of the nominee."
Please send your suggestions for Board members
at-large to ACLU, 503 Market Street, San Francisco,
94105, before September 30, giving as much biograph-
ical 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 distinction; that they are re-
quired to attend noon meetings in San Francisco the
second Thursday of each month except August, serve
on committees and, of course, must be members of
ACLU of Northern California.
The nominating committee, to be appointed by Chair-
man Howard H. Jewel at the September 11 board meet-
ing, will be composed of two Board and three non-
Board members.
A
Berkeley/Albany Chapter
Chairman and Chapter Legaf
Panel Chairman, will be honored
at a dinner party, Sunday, Sep-
tember 14, at the Schroerluke's,
870 Keeler Avenue,
at 7:30 p.m.
who recently resigned from the
Chapter because of a move to
Oakland, will feature gourmet
Italian dishes (omitting spa-
ghetti), wine, fruit and cheese.
Carl Bernstein, classical guitarist
from Vin et Fromage, will play.
to the first 80 people who make
reservations. Cost is $3.00 per
person. Te reserve call the Chap-
ter Office, 548-1322, or Diane
Schroerluke, 527-3632.
DINNER TO HONOR
KEN KAWAICHI
Ken Kawaichi,
REPRINTS
AVAILABLE
Reprints of two articles of in-
terest to ACLU members are
available from the San Francisco
office. ``The Courts Have Failed
the Poor," by J. Kelly Wright
(2 judge on the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of
Columbia circuit), first appeared
former
Vice
Berkeley,
The dinner for Mr. Kawaichi,
zine, March 9, 1969. It sells for
$0.21, including postage.
"Defender of Unpopular
Causes' first appeared in Ebony,
January 1969 and is about Eleanor
H. Norton, Assistant Legal Direc-
tor of ACLU, a black young wom-
an attorney who in the course of
her work for ACLU has defended
the free speech rights of George
C. Wallace and of individual
Klansmen. It sells for $0.16, in-
cluding postage.
Space and food are limited
in the New York Times Maga-
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NEWS
Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern Califernia
Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, Californie
ERNEST BESIG .. . Editor
$03 Market Street, Sem Francisce, Californie 94108, 4339-2750
Subcription Rates -- Two Dollars and Fifty Cents a Year
Twenty-Five Cents Per Copy 152
RESULTS OF 1969 MEMBERSHIP CAMPAIGN
Note: 1. Membership figures include family members. The totals, therefore, do not reflect the number of new indi-
vidual memberships. The number of new student members is shown in parentheses next to the column of
total memberships. (c) :
2. Under column 5 "Contributions" are listed non-membership contributions and extra contributions made by
members exclusive of those sent in response to the June Special Funds Appeal.
3. Only the names of chairmen and volunteers who undertook overall responsibility for the campaign within
chapters, councils, and specified areas are given. They were assisted by numerous other volunteers whose
efforts are deeply appreciated.
`New. Subscribers
New Memberships Contributions to NEWS Total
CHepiets ee Seen Dallas Noles bols Nas Ballas lnconty
Berkeley/Albany ...... 153 (: 64) 1324.50 11 248.00 1 2.50 1575.00
resn0. 23 ~=-(:16) 132.50 - - 3 7.50 140.00
Marin... BS. ( 42) 605.50 3 60.00 1 2.50 668.00
Mid-Peninsula .............183 (94) 708.00 3 23.00 1 1.25 932.25
Monterey .................... 11. (euro 3) 74.00 2 59.00 = 133.00
Mount Diablo .............15 ( 2) 133.00 - -_ - - 133.00
Sacramento ................ 63 ( 27) 44150 3 45.00 1 3.50 490.00
Santa Clara .............. 34 (8) 285.00 3 120.00 1 1.25 406.25
Santa Cruz ................-. 15 (4 0x00B0(R)":11850 - oo 1 1.25 119.75.
Sonoma ............ ab. 9) 22800 = 1 250 230.50
Stockton... SE, 3) 174.00 2 15.00 1 1.25 190.25
Oakland Area Co. ...... 32 (10) 241.50 6 75.00 2 2.50 319.00
West Contra Costa Co. 15 ( 1) 143.50 iz 12.00 1 3.50 159.00
Non-chapter areas and miscellaneous
Chico 1 (- 5.00 - ~- _- - 5.00
Modesto. .............0........ 6 -( 1) 50.00 - os _-_ - 50.00
| Napa/Solano Cos. ... 8 ( 1) 11200 - - 112.00
San Francisco ............ 176 (42) 1661.00 12 202.50 6 11.00 1874.50
Southern Alameda ... 14 ( 5). 9750 1 1000 - - 107.50
Misc. California ........ 21 = C(.. 8) 269.75 1 7.00 50x00B0 3413.75 290.50
`San Mateo County ... 59 ( 10) 574.50 7 #11750 - - 692.50
Out of State ....... a 4 ( 1) 42.50 1 5.00 - - 47.50
Foreign ge ED - 8.000 - -_- -_ - 8.00
TOTAL. 32. 3. 889 (315) 7429.75 57 999.00 25 54.25 8483.00
Membership Chairman
Mrs. Retha Lobdell
Mr. Ronald Waidtlow
Mr. Walter Kassoway
Mmes. Marlene Levenson and
Judith Burgess
Mr. Vern Beck
Mmes., Marilyn Pennebaker
Miriam Di Pace
Mrs. Myra Schimke
Mr. Argo Gherardi
Messrs. Robert Lissner -
Stanley Stevens
Mrs. Linda Macpherson
Mr. Frank Jones
Mrs. B'Ann Hoff
Mr. Siraj Kadri
Office, aided by
Ditto
Office aided by Mmes.
Ditto
Ditto
Mrs. Emily Skolnick
Mrs. E. Keech
Keech and Angie King
Drop in New Members
1969 Membership Drive
Is a Disappointment
For the first time since 1964 the ACLUNC annual mem-
bership drive has: taken'a drop in' the number of' new ~
members and income gained, as of June 30, the end of the
drive. This year's gains were 99 fewer members than last
year and $18 less.
Evidently ACLU of Northern
California has not escaped the
drop experienced by the National
ACLU (which it calls "danger-
ous'), Like the National, ACLU-
NC is hard put to find specific
reasons for the break in the slow
but steadily rising gain in mem-
bership it has experienced here-
tofore.
Reasons for Drop
Some of the reasons which
may account for this year's dis-
appointing results are the fact
that a good many cause organi-
gations which do not solicit
through Community Chest also
find the Spring to be the best
time for membership and finance
campaigns. Locally, these now in-
clude television station KQED
and radio station KPFA whose
audiences include _ potential
ACLU members, Another reason
could be that the political cli-
mate has taken an overall toll of
the people who would be expect-
ed to join ACLU and who have
decided to support other causes
and organizations dealing with
various crises. The Marin Chap-
ter suffered because of such
crises in conservation, to the ex-
tent that members who would
have helped on the drive felt
compelled to assist in that field.
Problem In Timing
One reason for the drop is the
unsatisfactory timing between
the commencement of the drive
and the annua] turnover in chap-
ter boards. Outgoing boards have
not realized that they had to
make provision for organization
ef the drive, and new boards
have been faced with the task of
finding membership chairmen
and volunteers, with resultant
delays. However, this does not
explain the drop in San Fran-
cisco, which is not so handi-
capped.
Of the chapters which have
been static in terms of potential
new members Stockton did the
most remarkable job of pulling
itself out of the rut and it regis-
tered increases in both number
of members gained and income.
Santa Cruz, which suffered from
campaign leadership turnover in
mid-drive also registered gains.
Fresno, Mid- Peninsula, Sacra-
mento and Sonoma showed the
results of well-organized and con-
tinuing mechanisms for the an-
nual drive. The Berkeley-Albany
and Marin chapter results dem-
onstrate the organizational diffi-
culties noted. In addition, of
course, the Berkeley - Albany
chapter's attention focused on
the recent difficulties that the
city of Berkeley experienced, al-
most to the exclusion of al] other
business. Of all the chapters it
has traditionally been the biggest
source of new members and us-
ually runs almost equal with San
Francisco in terms of income.
This year a Branch Board
member, Mrs, Emily Sholnick,
undertook the drive in San Mateo
County. Working for only a short
but intensive period she "deliver-
ed" 59 new members and dou-
bled last year's income,
Southern Alameda County,
which showed signs of potential
a few years ago, dropped to show
more of a loss even than last
year's. The barriers of distance
between the communities in that
general area present an almost
insurmountable problem.
The two new councils (provi-
sionary chapters) of ACLUNC- (c)
Oakland and West Contra Costa
County have faced problems that
have taken energy away from
campaigning for membership. In
the case of the Oakland Council
there has been a complete turn-
over in the leadership that
brought about the organization
of the Council. West Contra
Costa is hard put to deal with
the civil liberties and related
problems with which it is de-
luged. On the whole, even if it
gets into a position in which it
can deal with the many problems
Panthers and Grand Jury
ACLUNC Afttacks Federal
Black. Panthers~Larry-. Carter,
Fred Crawford, and Steve Shead
were convicted last month of
contempt of court for refusing to
answer questions concerning pos-
sible violations of the new fed-
eral "anti-riot" law.
The three are represented by
the firm of Garry, Dreyfus, Mc-
Terman and Biotsky. Their con-
tempt convictions are being ap-
pealed, and ACLUNC has filed
an amicus brief attacking the
constitutionality of the statute.
Provisions of Law
The statute punishes anyone
who while traveling in interstate
or foreign commerce and has the
intent at the time of travel to (a)
incite a riot; (b) organize, pro-
mote, encourage, participate in,
or carry on a riot; (c) cemmit
any act of violence in further-
"Outside Agitator' Law
ance of a riot, or (d) to.aid or.-
abet any person in inciting or
participating in or carrying on a
riot or committing any act of vio-
lence in furtherance of a riot,
performs or attempts to perform
any other overt act for any of
the above purposes during the
course of his travel or any time
thereafter,
ACLUNC contends that the
statute is unconstitutional be-
cause it unreasonably inhibits in-
terstate travel, is both vague and
overboard under the _ First
Amendment, and permits punish-
ment of one who has an evil in-
tent at one. time but later
abandons it, and commits acts
innocent in themselves. s
Argument before the 9th Cir-
cuit of Appeal is expected to oc-
cur in September.
Continued from Page 4-
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Search and Seizure
The Warren Court exitec with
a flourish. On its last day it
handed down Chime] v. Califor-
nia, a decision which is clearly
one of the most important in the
nistory of the Warren Court. One
of the foremost police methods
of obtaining incriminating evi-
dence against individuals has
been the technique of "search
and incident to an arrest." An
arrest on a relatively m:nor
charge would frequently give rise
to a rather extensive search of
the defendant and his belong-
ings, which would then reveal
evidence of far more severe of-
fenses. Often, it was the latter
evidence which the potice were
that beset the community, it will
probably not be a prime mem-
bership recruitment area but an
action and service-oriented arm
of ACLUNC,
A great debt of gratitude is
owed to the many volunteers who
assisted in the drive, in the San
Francisco office, the two chap-
ter offices, and telephoned from
their homes. As always, their as-
sistance is indispensable.
after all along, and the arrest
served merely as a pretext. The
Chimel case cleared up much un-
certainty about the permissible
Fourth Amendment scope of a
search incident to an_ arrest,
overruling the previous case of
United States v. Rabinowitz. The
petitioner had been arrested in
his home for burglarizing a coin
shop and police officers then pro-
ceeded to conduct a search of his
entire three-bedroom house, in-
cluding the attic, the garage, a
small workshop, and _ various
drawers, They finally found some -
coins. Speaking for six members
of the Court, Justice Stewart
held that a search incident to an
arrest constitutionally can go no
further than the defendant's per-
son and the area within which
he reasonably could (1) obtain a
weapon or (2) destroy evidence.
Any further search must be con-
ducted later, with a search war-
rant,
In Spinelli v, United. States, .
the Court considered a search
pursuant to a search warrant.
The five to three decision (Jus-
tice Marshall did not participate)
was concerned with the standards
for establishing "probable cause"
LAW AND THE
CAMPUS
COMMUNITY
Ephraim Margolin, member of 0x00A7
the ACLUNC Board of Directors
and Chairman of its Legal Com-
mittee, will give a U.C. Extension
course on the Law and the |
Campus Community on the San
Francisco campuses.
Intended primarily for college
and junior college administra-
tors, the course will examine the
role of the law in the current
campus crisis; the relation of the
First Amendment rights of free
speech and assembly to such-
matters as pre-censorship, pro-
tected and privileged expression,
time, place and manner regula-
tions, libel, obscenity, fighting
words, curfew and states of
emergency, picketing and other
demonstrations, symbolic acts,
and academic freedom. It will
also include problems of internal
disciplinary procedures (the rights
of those disciplined and the
j rights of the institution) and
problems involying the outside
community such as subpoena
| powers of investigating bodies,
state control of curricula and
separation of church and state.
Grievance regulations in effect
on different compuses will be
compared. Course participants
will attempt to develop legal
guidelines for colleges to use
in formulating timely and effec-
tive standards and goals.
S. F. DATES and TIMES
The course on the San Fran-
cisco campus of U. C. Extension
will take place on successive
Thursday evenings, from 7 to
9:30, commencing Thursday,
October 2 and ending. Novem-
ber 20. :
SANTA CRUZ DATES and TIMES
| In Santa Cruz the course will
be given as follows: Saturday,
| October 4, starting at 9:30 a.m.,
| Saturday, October 25 and Sun-
day, October 26, starting at
9:30 a.m., and Saturday and
Sunday, November 15 and No-
; vember 16, starting at 9:30 a.m.
Applications for the course in
San Francisco should be re-
quested from U.C. Extension, 55
Laguna Street, San Francisco, |
California 94102. Applications
for the course in Santa Cruz
should be requested from De-
partment B, University Exten-
sion, University of California,
Berkeley, California 94720,
sufficient to justify the issuance
of a search warrant, The. true
meaning of the decision is some-
what in doubt, since the various
opinions in the case do not seem
to agree on exactly what the
holding was. Speaking for four
Justices, Mr. Justice Harlan's
opinion purported merely to ex-
plicate the standards already laid
out in the earlier case of Agui-
lar v. Texas. However, Justice
Black's dissenting opinion viewed |
Aguilar as having been expanded
"to almost unbelievable propor-
tions." Justice Fortas dissented
on different grounds, and Justice
Stewart dissented on grounds
which are impossible to figure
out. The "swing-man" turned out
to be Justice White, whose con-
curring opinion interprets the
majority opinion narrowly, One
thing is certain: a warrant based
on an informer's tip which is
- otherwise insufficient to furnish
probable cause will not be bol-
stered by corroborative informa-
tion in the warrant from an in-
dependent FBI investigation. In
the absence of a statement de-
tailing the manner in which the
affiant gathers his information
it is particularly critical that the
informer's tip describe the crimi-
nal activity in sufficient detail
"so that the magistrate may
know he is relying on something
more substantia] than a casual
rumor circulating in the under-
world or an accusation based
merely on an individual's gen-
eral reputation." -
To be concluded next month
ACLU MEWS
SEPTEMBER, 1969
Page 3
FIRST AMENDMENT
Political Advocacy
Ironically, the Ku Klux Klan
served as the vehicle for an ex-
pansion in the protection of po-
litical advocacy in the landmark
case of Brandenburg v Ohio. The
Court struck down Ohio's "crimi-
nal syndicalism" statute, and
finally explicitly overruled Whit-
ney v. California (1927) which
had upheld California's criminal
syndicalism law. The Klan had
held a rally at which speakers
talked of the possible need for
"revengence" against Blacks and
Jews. The statute was held con-
stitutionally deficient in that it
punished mere advocacy of vio-
lence as a means of accomplish-
ing political reform. Speeches did
not have to constitute an "in-
citement to imminent lawless ac-
tion." The case presents an inter-
ing enigma as to the status of
Dennis v. United States (1951),
which announced an attenuated
version of Justice Holmes' "clear
and present danger' doctrine.
The unanimous unsigned opinion
merely cites the Dennis case,
specifying neither agreemeut nor
disagreement with the "clear
present danger" doctrine, In con-
curring opinions, Justices Black
and Douglas said that the clear
and present danger test should be
thrown out completely, Justice
Douglas took the occasion to em-
phasize his dissent in the 1968 case
of United States v. O'Brien, in
which the Court upheld the con- ~
stitutionality of the draft card
burning law. Justice Douglas in-
sisted that under the First
Amendment, ``matters of belief,"
as opposed to overt action, should
always be fully protected from
any intrusion.
_ The opinion is vitally impor-
tant in its reaffirmation of the
doctrine indicated somewhat un-
clearly by Yates v. U.S. (1957).
In Brandenburg the Court made
clear that advocacy (even advo-
eacy of the moral necessity of
violence for political reform) is
constitutionally protected in the
absence of incitement to immi-
nent lawless action.
A conviction for publicly mu-
tilating and casting contempt
upon a United States flag was
reversed in Street v. New York.
After learning that James Mere-
dith had been shot in Mississippi
by a sniper, the defendant
burned an American flag on a
New York street corner and
stated to a policeman: "If they
did that to Meredith, we don't
need an American flag" and "We
don't need no damn flag." The
statute allowed conviction for
casting contempt upon the flag
"either by words or act." Though
the defendant had arguel his
right under the First Amend-
ment to make a dramatic politi-
cal statement by burning the
flag, Justice Harlan's majority
opinion rested cn the much nar-
rower ground that, under the
statute and evidence, it was pos-
sible that the conviction was
based on the spoken words alone
(which were constitutionality
protected under the circum-
stances of the case) rather than
on the actual act of flag burning.
Justices Warren, Black, and For-
tas, dissented saying that the de-
fendant was convicted for the act
rather than the words, and that
such a conviction was constitu-
tional. Justice White dissented
on the grounds that the accused
was not convicted for speech
alone, and that the judgment
should be upheld even if tke con-
viction was for constituticnally-
protected speech together with
flag burning.
In Watts v. United States, the
Court in an unsigned opinion re-
versed the conviction of a youth
under a federal statute making it
a felony to threaten the life of -
the President. At a public rally,
the young man stated his cesist-
ance to the draft and said that
"if they ever make me cairy a
rifle the first man I want io get
in my sights is LPB. They are
not going to make me kill my
black brothers." Predictably the
Court held that the statute on
ACLU NEWS
SEPTEMBER, 1969
Page 4
its face was constitutional, but
that the circumstances of this
case did not permit a conviction
consistent with the First Amend-
ment. Both the defendant and
' the crowd had laughed after the
defendant's statement, Consider-
ing this reaction, the context of
the speech, and the "expressly
conditional nature of the state-
ment," the Court viewec the
speech as merely "a kind of very
crude offensive method of stating
a political opposition to the
President." Concurring, Justice
Douglas traced the history of
similar statutes and stated that
the present statute's oppressive
effect was the same as that cre-
ated by the Alien and Sedition
laws, Justice White dissented
without opinion, Justice Stewart
stated that he would deny the
defendant's Petition for review,
and Justices Fortas and Harlan
dissented on the ground that the
court should not have ruled on
the issue without hearing oral
argument.
Protest Marches
Convictions resulting fron. pro-
test marches were reversed in
two cases. In Shuttlesworth v.
Birmingham, the defendant was
convicted of violating an ordi-
nance which forbade participa-
tion in a demonstration without
a permit. The ordinance author-
ized the City to refuse permits
for reasons of "public welfare,
peace, safety, health, decency,
good order, morals or corveni-
ence." Justice Stewart for six
members of the Court held that
the ordinance was unconstitu-
tional on its face since it sub-
jected the exercise of First
Amendment freedoms to the
prior restraint of a license with-
out valid and narrowly drawn
standards. The Alabama Supreme
Court had severly narrowed the
statute by interpretation, but the
U.S. Supreme Court nevertieless
reversed the conviction saying
that the Alabama Supreme
Court's 1967 decision could not
"restore constitutional valicity to
a conviction that occurred in 1963
under the ordinance as it was
written." It held furthermore
that even if the Alabama Court's
judicial narrowing of the statute
were viewed as preserving the
constitutionality of the statute on
its face, it could in no way be
constitutionally applied to Mr.
Shuttlesworth. The City had made
it clear that under no circum-
stances would the defendant and
his group be permitted to demon-
strate, even if a time and place
were selected that would minim-
ize traffic problems. The Court
_ said that "surrounding relevant
circumstances" could not be ig-
nored. Concurring separately,
Justice Harlan concerned himself
with the question of `whether
the Fourteenth Amendment ever
bars the state from punishing a
citizen for marching without a
permit which could have been
procured if ail available reme-
dies had been pursued." The ma-
jority opinion, he stated, seemed
to indicate that a citizen is en-
titled to rely on the statutory con-
struction adopted by ``the state of-
ficials who are on the front line,
administering the permit scheme.
If these officials construe a vague
statute unconstitutionaily, the
citizen may take them at their
word, and act on the assumption
that the statute is void." Justice
Harlan felt that "the right to ig-
nore a permit requirement should,
in my view, be made to turn on
something more substantial than
a minor official's view of his au-
thority under the governing
statute." Justice Black concurred
with the majority but wrote no
separate opinion.
The other case was Gregory v.
Chicago, which reversed tke dis-
orderly conduct conviction of
Dick Gregory. Chief Justice War-
ren, speaking for six Justices,
noted first that "there is no evi-
dence in this record that peti-
tioners' conduct was disorderly":
thus the convictions were ``so to-
tally devoid of evidentiary sup-
port" as to violate due process of
law. He noted ilso that the IIli-
nois Supreme Court's opinion
suggested "that petitioners were
convicted not fer the manner in
which they conducted their
march but rather for their re-
fusal to disperse when requested
to do so by Chicago police";
hence the petitioners were, in ef-
fect, convicted fer a charge which
was never made. A third inde-
pendent ground for reversal was
the fact that "the trial judge's
charge permitted the jury tv con-
vict for acts clearly entitled to
First Amendment protection' in
violation of Stromberg v. Califor-
nia (1931). There was no dis-
sents, but Justices Black and
Douglas joined in a separate con-
curring opinion which stressed:
"This we think is a highly im-
portant case which requires more
detailed consideration thaa the
Court's opinion gives it." They
deplored the vagueness and over-
breadth of the Chicago disorder-
ly conduct ordinance, and called
for narrowly drawn laws in this
area.
Obscenity
Stanley v. Georgia was a land-
tionally valid reasons to regulate
their speech, students are enti- (c)
led to freedom of expression of
their views." The Court repeated-
ly made clear that the principal
"Constitutionally valid reason" it
had in mind was disruption or
interference with schocl activi-
ties and that the action cf the
pupils in this case gave no cause
for reasonable fear of such dan-
gers. The Court also noted that
the particular symbol of black
armbands was singled out for
prohibition; that the prohibition
did not extend to any and all
political or controversial symbols.
Justice Black dissented, foresee-
ing calamitous results. "If the
time has come," he said, `when
pupils of state-supported schools,
kindergartens, grammar schools
or high schools can defy and
flaunt orders of school officials
to keep their minds on their own
schoo] work, it is the beginning
of a new revolutionary era of
mark obscenity case, Speaking
for six Justices, Mr. Justice Mar-
shall held unconstitutional a
Georgia statute outlawing know-
ing possession of obscene matter.
"Tf the First Amendment means
anything," the Court said, "`it
means that a state has no busi-
ness telling a man, sitting alone
in his own house, what books he
may read and what films he may
watch. Our whole Constitutional
heritage rebels at the thought of
giving the government the power
to control men's minds." How-
ever, the Court warned that
"what We have said in no way
infringes upon the power of...
government to make possession
of other items, such as narcotics,
firearms, or stolen goods, a
crime." The Court said nothing
about whether showing obscene
tilms to friends or relatives could
constitutionally be made a crime.
Selling or distributing obscene
matter (rather than merely pos-
sessing it) can still be constitu-
tionally punished when the re-
quirements of Roth v. United
States and other prior cases are
met. Justice Black concurred sep-
`arately, citing previous opinions
of his, Justices Stewart, Brennan
and White concurred in a sepa-
rate opinion stating that the case
should be decided on the issue
of the seizure of the films, which
they viewed as violation of the
Fourth Amendment.
Student Rights
In Tinker v. Des Moines Inde-
pendent Community Schoo' Dis-
trict, the Court held that stu-
dents in public elementary and
secondary schools are entitled to
the First Amendment guarantee
of free speech. In Tinker, three
students, 12, 15, and 16 years old,
wore black armbands to school
to dramatize their objections to
the Vietnam War. They were
immediately suspended ana told
they could not return to school
until they abandoned their arm-
bands, Justice Fortas, for seven
Justices, recognized the armband
as a form of "symbolic speech"
and held that "in the absence of
a specific showing of Constitu-
Review of
_ Significant
| U.S. Supreme
Court Decisions
1968 -
By KOREY MANDEL
ACLU Summer Fellow 1969 - Third Year Student
University of California Law Schocl
(Boalt Hall)
1969
permissiveness in this country
fostered by the judiciary." Jus-
tice Harlan also dissented, sepa-
rately.
While important, the Tinker
decision does not necessarily
point the way to revolutionary
reform in the field of student
rights. The majority opinion
noted that "the problem present-
ed by the present case does not
relate to regulations. of the
length of skirts or the type of
clothing, to hair style or deport-
ment." Indeed, the Court refused
to review two cases last term
which sought to establish the
right of male high school stu-
dents to wear hair longer than
many adults seem to like. On the
other hand, the thrust of the de-
cision, and its premises, suggest
tha tthe Court will soon have to
decide the questions it avoided.
Academic Freedom
About 50 years late, the Court
held in Epperson vy, Arkansas
that a state statute prohibiting
the teaching of the theory of evo-
lution violates the establisnment
clause and the free exercise of
religion clause of the First
Amendment. The Court struck
down an Arkarsas statute sub-
stantially the same as the one
involved in the world famous
Scopes "monkey trial," the case
that first brought the ACLU to
public attention,
Injunctions Against
Demonstrations
In Carroll v. President and
Commissioners of Princess Anne
County, Maryand officiais se-
cured a state court injunction,
without notice or hearing, forbid-
ding for 10 days any public ral-
lies by the National States Rights
Party, a white supremacist or-
ganization. The officials claimed
that the rally would inciude such
inflammatory speeches against
Blacks and Jews that it would
endanger the community. As a_
result, the scheduled rally was
not held. For the Court, Justice
Fortas held that the case was not
unreviewable on the ground of
"mootness" merely because the
10-day order had expired, be-
cause "the underlying question
persists and is agitated by the
continuing activities and program
of petitioners: whether, by what
processes, and to what extent the
authorities of the local govern-
ments may restrict petitioners in
their rallies and public meet-
ings." The Court refused, how-
ever, to answer the quecentstion
whether the authorities had the
power to prohibit the assembly
in spite of the petitioners' claim
that the injunction was an un-
constitutional `prior restraint'
on speech. The Court held in-
stead on the much narrower
ground that there was a `basic
infirmity in the procedure by
which it was obtained." Such an
injunction can be granted, the
Court said, only after the group
is given notice of the proposed
injunction and also an opportu-
nity to appear in court in order
to challenge its issuance, An or-
der without notice to the other
side may sometimes be legzal, the
Court noted, `but there is no
place within the area of basic
freedoms guaranteed by the First
Amendment -for such orders
where no showing is made that
it is impossible to serve or to
notify the opposing parties and
to give them an opportunity to
participate."
Television and Radio
In Red Lion Broadcasting Com-
pany v. Federal] Communications
Commission, the Court bolstered
the "fairness doctrine" with re-
spect to television and radio
broadcasting. The FCC fairness
rule requires radio and television
broadcasters to present different
points of view about controver-
sial public issues. The radio and
television industry had claimed
the fairness doctrine violated its
right to freedom of speech and
press. The Court rejected those
claims, holding that the public's
First Amendment right tc hear
different sides of public issues
constituted a paramount interest:
"Because of the scarcity of radio
frequencies," the Court said "the
Government is permitted to put
restraints on licensees in favor of
others whose views should be ex-
pressed on this unique medium." -
-Continued on Page 3
The first right of @ citizen
Is the right ~
To be responsible
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
Patron Membership ee a ae
Sustaining Membership
Business and Professional Membership .............
Family Membership
Annual, Membership ..... 6... 5. es 6 we ee
Student Membership
ooeese eee 807228 8 2 e006 6 oe
JOIN TODAY
QE 181
eoeeceereeoeveve eee eee (c) o
25
1S
10
esceeevevee eevee eee eee 2 6 8 (c) 8 and (c) OO
3
ACLU News Subseription ...... 0.0.02. c ence ces POU
Contributions are deductible for income tax purposes
NAME .... 0.5.0.
ADDRESS and ZIP CODE ....
303 Market Street
eeeeceesreroeersx0e eee
oeeeereeoe eee
TELEPHONE NUMBER ......... cate
San Francisco, 94105
All contributions tax deductible.
eecereseeeeo Fs eeene eee og
eoeeeseee eee ees e208
... AMT. ENCLOSED....
cove eg