vol. 41, no. 1

ae "

aclu:

Volume XLI

On

_ January 1976, San Francisco

More than 600 ACLU supporters

gathered at the Sheraton Palace Grand

Ballroom last month to honor two'of the

ACLU of Northern California's original

founders at the third annual Bill of Rights -

Celebration. -

Helen. Salz and Alaxander Meiklejohn

received the Earl Warren Civil Liberties

Award in recognition of more than 40 years

of leadership, support and personal

sacrifice for the ACLU and the individual

liberties of their fellow citizens. Helen

Meiklejohn accepted the-award for Dr.

Meiklejohn, who died in 1964. Mrs. Salz

(left) and Mrs. Meiklejohn (standing) are

seen here greeting well-wishers before the

ceremony.

Eva Jefferson Paterson, a recent

graduate of Boalt Hall School of Law and

the former director of ACLU-NC's Student

Rights Project, presented the Earl Warren

Civil Liberties Award to Helen Salz. Helen

cisco, 94103.

1975 Bill of Rights Celebration

Meiklejohn accepted the award for her |

late husband from Louise Rothman-

Riemer, the past chairperson of the

Oakland Chapter.

Due in large part to the efforts of Board

member Fran Strauss and Bill of Rights

Coordinator Clarence Maloney, the fund-

raising for the event produced close to

$55,000 which will go to the support of the

Foundation's Legal program.

Flushed with this success, the Bill of

Rights Committee is already planning

next year's celebration. The Committee is

soliciting nominations for recipients of the

Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award. If you

have suggestions of deserving individuals

who have worked for the rights of otHers,

send them to the Bill of Rights Committee

at ACLU, 814-Mission Street, San Fran-

Photograph by Alvan Meyerowitz

the film `Manson,"

Thomas MacBride in

Lynette `""Squeaky''

a fair trial.

portance."

Nevertheless,

the matter was moot.

Commentary

Gas onlin threaten press freedom

by David M. Fishlow

Executive Director

ACLU of Northern California

The issuance of so-called "`gag'"' orders by judges

who invoke the Sixth Amendment's fair trial

guarantees to justify interfering with a free press

suddenly threatens to become commonplace,

throwing the ACLU of Northern California into battle

on a series of cases as important as any it has litigated.

New York State Judge John -R. Starkey was

spouting the conventional wisdom on gag orders

January 15 when he prohibited reportage by the New

York Times and the Post of details in the trial of

accused murderer Robert C. (Sonny) Carson:

_ "We have to balance the freedom of the press with

the constitutional right of defendants to a fair trial,"'

Judge Starkey said, and there are many who would

agree that his order was just the ticket. Surely, they

would argue, the right of a defendant to be protected

from prejudicial publicity before and during trial lies

at the very foundation of the American criminal

justice system. To allow the press to interfere with that

protection, free though the press may be, would be

unthinkable, even though temporarily gagging the

press might appear to place the Sixth Amendment on

a higher plane than that occupied by the First.

In fact, the apparent conflict between a free press

and a fair trial is illusory, and attempts to `"`strike a

balance' between them merely dignify censorship by

calling it ``protection for the rights of the accused."'

The phenomenon is not a new one; restrictions on

the right of the press to report details of criminal trials

and investigations have been placed before, frequently

with the purest of motives. `The right of the people to

have a free press is a vital one, but so is the right to

have a calm and fair trial free from outside pressures

and influences," wrote Mr. Justice Jackson in a 1947

dissent. "Every other right, including the right of a

free press itself, may depend on the ability to get a

judicial hearing as dispassionate and impartial as the

weakness inherent in men will permit. ... I do not

think we can say that it is beyond the power of the

state to exert pisos) against such interference -

with the course of trial .

Such an argument misses the point. The question is

not whether the state has, or-ought to have, the power

to "exert safeguards against... interference with the

course of trial," but rather whether that power in-

cludes the right to prohibit publication of news and

continued on page 2

payg0g

"WRONTS NVOVG NNV SSiw

The 26-county ban on the showing of

ordered last

October by U.S. District Court Judge the

the trial of

Fromme, has been

appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court

this month. ACLU-NC Legal Director

Charles Marson petitioned the Court to

invalidate the gag order because it

interfered with the right of the public to

see and hear the film, and was not

necessary to protect Fromme' s right to

Though the gag order expired after

the jury was sequestered, the ACLU is .

asking the Court to review its legality

anyway since it addresses

issues of free press and fair trial that are

unique and of the utmost public im-

"important

Marson has already argued before

Judge MacBride and later before the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals un-

successfully that the film ban is un-

constitutional. "There are ample means

available to the courts to ensure that an

impartial jury is seated without denying

two million people in 26 counties the

} right to see a movie made several years -

before Fromme's alleged attempt on the.

life of the President,' Marson said.

Judge MacBride

refused to vacate the order and the

. Court of Appeals declined to review the

case once the jury had been chosen and

the order expired, on the ground that

euroOLyen6 VI Aa TSN

1S OISTINGYS GTLT

SQL vrnAlyd O77"

"Ye LO GND weoessez

"news

No. 1

`Manson' Fromme film ban

appealed to Supreme Court

Marson has asked that the Supreme

Court accept review of the case and that

"Manson" film case be con-

solidated with the Nebraska press gag

order case which has already been

accepted by the Court. Marson also

prepared National ACLU's amicus

curiae brief in the Nebraska case.

Both cases present similar issues in

that they involve gag orders placed

directly on the media. Usually, gag

orders are directed only at the parties in

a case or officers of the courts. Gag

orders against third parties who are not

involved in the case have never been

upheld.

Federal courts have consistently held

that publications or other media

comment may not be prohibited in

advance. However, writers and

publishers may be held responsible for

their publications after they appear.

This principle was most recently

restated in the New York Times -

Pentagon Papers case.

ACLU-NC Executive Director David

Fishlow commented: "If judges can

prohibit newspapers from covering

pending trials or film producers from

showing movies made years before any

alleged crime took place, then a judge

could have ordered a news blackout on

the Watergate scandals on the ground

that. publicity might be prejudicial to

Nixon or his aides if they faced criminal

charges." :

8 continued on page 4

`nominations for members at-large to the Board of

Board Nominations

ACLU members are invited to submit

Directors of ACLU-NC. There are two ways in

which nominations from the general membership

may be submitted.

Prior to April 1, 1976, embers may suggest

names for consideration directly to the nominating

committee. The committee is composed of Board

members Len Sperry, and Ruth Jacobs as well as

non-Board members Lisa Kalvelage, Yori Wada

and Tom Layton. The committee will evaluate

the suggestions and then make recommendations

to the Board.

Furthermore, any fifteen or more members of the

Union may themselves submit a nomination which

will automatically be placed before the Board of (c)

Directors. These may be submitted by sending a

written petition no later than May 1, 1976 to be

considered by the Board along with the

nominations presented by the nominating com-

mittee.

No member may sign more than one such

petition and each nomination must be ac-

companied by a summary of qualifications and the

written consent of the nominee to serve.

Please send your nominations or suggestions to

the Nominating Committee, ACLU-NC, 814

Mission St., San Francisco, California 94103.

Jan. 1976

aclu news

LEGAL

_ Gas orders threaten fair trial - free press balance -Fishlow

continued from page 1

comment by what is ostensibly a free press. Further,

even were we to accept the claim, dubious at best, that

such orders are constitutional, there remains the

pragmatic question: whether or not interference with

the right of the press to report would, in the long run, :

actually accrue to the benefit of the accused.

Since November, four judges curbed the press and -

the broadcast media. Perhaps the most egregious civil

liberties violation was that of U.S. District Court

Judge Thomas J. MacBride, who banned the showing

or advertising of the film "Manson" in 26 Northern

California counties because seeing the film, or reading

ads for it, might have so prejudiced potential jurors

in the Lynette (Squeaky) Fromme trial as to make im-.

possible the impanelling of an impartial jury. In

reality, as ACLU-NC Attorney Charles Marson

argued at the time, "`there are ample means available

to the courts to ensure that an impartial jury is seated

without denying to the two million people in 26

-counties their constitutional right to see a movie made

several years before Fromme's alleged attempt on the

life of the President.' MacBride's order was un-

successfully appealed, and the Supreme Court has

been asked to review it.

Within a couple of months, the Hearst prosecution

asked for a gag order, a Nebraska judge ordered

newspapers to refrain from publishing details of the

trial of Erwin Simants (including some material -

revealed in open court), and Judge Starkey issued his

order in the New York case, an order intentionally

violated by the Times on January 7 so that its con-

stitutional validity could be tested.

Other means `available

In each case, the judges involved sought to protect

the rights of accused felons. Anyone who has read of

the circus-trials of Bruno Richard Hauptmann in the

Lindbergh kidnapping case, the Scopes trial, the Ohio

trial of Sam Sheppard, and other celebrated trials of

the past, would understand the need to insulate juries

from the undue influence of publicity.

Were there no way to do so without infringing on

- the rights of a free press, gag orders conceivably could

be justified. The reality, however, is that there are

numerous means available to the courts to insure that

a trial is conducted in the courtroom and not on the

television screen or in the newspaper columns; the

safeguards called for by Mr. Justice Jackson exist and

should be utilized.

Potential jurors are questioned june the voir dire;

the defense may challenge those who reveal prejudice

during their questioning. In addition, prospective

jurors can be "bumped"' by peremptory challenges,

for which no `"`cause"' must be shown, and judges may -

grant additional peremptory challenges in unusual

circumstances. The jury is frequently sequestered

during the course of a trial. When no impartial jury

can be impanelled, the defense can move for a change

of venue, waiving the Sixth Amendment's guarantee

of trial "by. an impartial jury of the State and district

wherein the crime shall have been committed..."

_ And gag orders - constitutionally permissible

because they do. not interfere with the rights of the

accused - can be placed on the prosecution, police,

_ public officials, and officers of the court who have

access to information which would be damaging to the

accused if made known to the public.

In the Hearst case, the government asserted that it

sought to gag the press in order to protect the rights of

both the government and the defendant to a "fair

trial."' At first blush, that seems fair enough, but it is

only clear that defense has a constitutional right to

such protection; it is unclear whether the constitution

gives the government a comparable right. .

Writing on the Nebraska gag order in the New

_ Republic on,December 27, Nathan Lewin commented,

"Qne wonders ... how the existence of `inculpatory'

information such as a confession came to the attention

of the press [in the first place] ... it seems more just

- as well as more constitutional - to gag the par-

ticipants than to silence those whose job it is to watch,

listen and report.

reports would be

"It is fematinely easy to prevent prejudicial

publicity by restricting the media; a prosecutor's

release of a confession cannot influence a jury if no

reporter dare print it. But prosecutors and law en-

forcement personnel have their own constitutional

duties to insure the fairness of trials, and a court may

and should discipline them for any violation of these

obligations. Defense lawyers, too, are limited by rules

of the bar to which they belong, most of which now

prohibit inflammatory public statements .. ."'

Gagging the defense

It seems hard to justify, Lewin notwithstanding, gag

rules against the defense, even when the gag stems not

from a judge's order but from rules of the bar. For

`more than a year, FBI agents, police, prosecutors and

anyone who could come up with a news angle had free

rein in talking to the press about the prosecution's

view in the Patricia Hearst case; it was not until the

defense began making public statements to the press

that the prosecution sought to stop all com-

munication.

Courts of appeal have occasionally overturned

criminal convictions because of pre-trial publicity,

most notably in the case of Dr. Sam Sheppard, freed

ten years after he was convicted of his wife's murder,

because the trial judge had failed to insulate the jury

which tried him from such publicity. In overturning

his conviction, the Supreme Court declared that

courts must "take such steps by rule or regulation that

will protect their processes from prejudicial outside

influences."

Still, commenting on the Sheppard decision, the

Supreme Court noted specifically that gagging the

press was not the way to bring about that insulation.

To interfere in advance with the publication of news

"simply incompatible with. the

dictates of the constitution and the concept of a free

press.'

The feeble attempt to address First Amendment |

concerns by the judges who issued recent gag orders

indicates that they themselves are aware of the

dangerous ground they tread. As Marson noted in the

ACLU's amicus brief in the Nebraska case, the

County Court's original order, based on the con-

- sideration of three newspaper clippings, found a

"reasonable likelihood of prejudicial news which

would make difficult if not impossible the impaneling

of an impartial jury ..." The State District Court

added the testimony of the County Court judge to the

record, and issued a new order because a ``clear and

present danger that pre-trial publicity could impinge

upon the defendant's right to a fair trial." Apparently

someone, in the interim between the issuance of the

County Court order and the District Court order, had

got around to reading the Supreme Court's decision

in Craig v. Harney, which put judges on notice that

free speech could not be prohibited unless it "con-

stitute[s] an imminent, not merely likely, threat to the

administration of justice. The danger must not be

remote or even probable; it must immediately im-

peril."

`(T]he First Amendment tolerates absolutely no'

prior judicial restraints of the press predicated upon

surmise or conjecture that untoward consequences

may result," wrote Mr. Justice Brennan in 1971,

concurring in the decision which allowed the printing

of the "Pentagon Papers"' in the New York Times.

Conflict not necessary

Nevertheless, the argument has been made, and

continues to be made, that free speech considerations

_may be subordinated to fair trial guarantees. ""The

_ right of free speech, strong though it may be, is not

absolute;" wrote Mr. Justice Harlan in 1961 in Wood

v. Georgia; "`when the right to speak conflicts with the

right to an impartial judicial proceeding, an ac-

comodation must be made to preserve the essence of

both .

In the ACLU Nebraska brief Marson wrote, `[t]he

orders of the Nebraska courts do not reach `an ac-

comodation, as the Nebraska Supreme Court

e

suggested, but a sacrifice of one because of speculative

effect on the other."

In plain words, the much alluded-to conflict be-

tween the First and Sixth Amendments the Supreme

Court will face in deciding the gag order cases is not a

real conflict. Rather than choosing between two

_ alternative and conflicitng mandates, the Court has

an opportunity to interpret the two provisions as

essentially complementary, upholding the right of a

criminal defendant to a fair trail by impartial jury, but

protecting as well the rights of the press to report and

the public:to know. The very existence of the fair trial

as an institution would seem to depend on its

protection by public scrutiny. Else whence the

requirement of an open trial? Does not the subjection

of the prosecution, the judge, and the trial itself to

public scrutiny protect, inure, in the long run, to the

protection of the defense? And how can that scrutiny

take place in modern society without free and open

reporting by the press? Speculate, if you will, on the

possible consequences which might stem from the

reasoning of Mr. Justice Blackmun, who forbade the

press to publish reports of the existence of a con-

fession, and who, because acknowledgment that such

an order had been issued would lead the public to

understand that a confession existed, forbade

publishing the terms of the order itself.

`Executive privilege'

Presidents frequently advance the argument that

some document, tape, or other piece of evidence

cannot be released to the courts or to the Congress

because of ``executive privilege," emphasizing thereby

the doctrine that the separation of powers in a

tripartite system makes each of the three branches

immune to review by, and independent of the control -

of, the other two. Such an argument seems to me to

miss the whole thrust of the tripartite system, which is

based not on executive or legislative, or even judicial

privilege, but rather on the system of checks and

balances. Each of the three branches is not in-

dependent of the scrutiny of the other two, but rather

subject to review and, ultimately, to control by, the

other two.

The relationship between the rights of the press and

the rights of criminal defendants is analogous. To

ignore the former merely because of the existence of

the latter is to miss entirely the thrust of the Bill of

Rights, which is an attempt not to create a hierarchy

of privileges superceding one another, but rather to

preserve certain protections in the face of conflicting

pressures. "All rights are inalienable, but some rights

are more inalienable than others" might be painted

on the side of the barn at Animal Farm. The law

provides protection for the defendant; charges against

him will be dismissed if the jury is tainted by publicity.

It may very well be that those who have, because of

their official responsibilities, access to dangerously

prejudicial information about a criminal defendant

ought to be gagged on the simple grounds of

protecting the privacy of the accused. In the long run,

however, public knowledge of what goes on in the:

court room is the greatest guarantee of a fair trial the

accused can have. `"`Sunlight,'' said Mr. Justice

Brandeis, "`is the best disinfectant."

To gag the press, either by introducing the per-

nicious prior restraints on publication which must

ultimately lead to general censorship, or to punish the

press for publishing information leaked to it, rather

than punishing the prosecutor or police officer who

makes the unauthorized revelation, is to Hirow the

baby out with the bath water.

The censorship already exists; Victor Marchetti,

who must submit everything he writes about the CIA

to government agents before he publishes it, can so

testify. That Judge MacBride could have banned the

showing of a film made years before Lynette Fromme

attempted to assassinate the President is, in the

context of the Marchetti decision, deeply disturbing. -

That judges more and more frequently seek to gag the

press, in light of the publication of the Paton

Papers, is more disturbing still. .

Invoking a Sixth Amendment justification for such -

_an order is spurious constitutional reasoning.

LEGISLATIVE

Jan. 1976

aclu flews -

ACLU opposes bills on campaign finance, farm access limits

By Brent Barnhart

. ACLU Legislative Representative

(Two critical bills came before the Legislature this

month which have serious civil liberties implications.

The following reports outline the ACLU's views of the

measures and indicate the actions ACLU can take to

help the legislative program.)

AB 2564 - PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING:

Oft-stated wisdom has it that politics makes strange

bedfellows. Very recently, however, the converse

proved to be true, as the ACLU and Common Cause,

who normally line up on the same side of issues -

"indeed who share to a great extent overlapping

memberships - found themselves on opposite sides of

a political reform measure.

. Common Cause authored a public campaign

financing bill sponsored by Assemblyman Howard

Berman, AB 2564, which proposes a thorough

overhauling of the current means of financing local

and statewide political contests. On the face of it,

most liberals think public financing is a good idea,

including, of course, ACLU staff and membership.

And indeed, most of the persons who testified against

_ AB 2564 stated that they favored some sort of public

_ financing.

However, after review by ACLU/NC's Executive

Committee, and on the recommendation of the

legislative staff, it was decided - in the last hours

before AB 2564 was to be heard in policy committee

- that the ACLU - should' oppose the

bill. Certain portions threatened First Amendment

freedoms and individuals' right of privacy. More

critically, however, it was determined that the broad

thrust of the bill would result in complete state -

regulation of the political process in California, and

would create such complexity in operation as to

reserve politics to attorneys, accountants and

professional consultants.

`After a thorough, and admittedly agonizing, review

of AB 2564, staff concurred with Prof. James S. Fay of

CSU Hayward that:

"Under the guise of political reform, AB 2564

would impose a strait jacket on our election

campaigns. It will cripple what is left of spon-

taneous amateur volunteer politics, substituting

for it a heavily bureaucratized professional

campaign system."

Two sections of AB 2564 create censorship powers

in the Secretary of State and county clerks as to public

campaign statements issued pursuant to the act.

Those officials would be empowered to refuse any

"obscene material"' and any material which "defames

another individual with respect to private matters,

advocates hatred, violence or contempt toward any

person or group of persons by reason of race, color,

religion or manner of worship, or is prohibited by law (c)

from being mailed."

S. 1 letters needed

S.1, the Federal Criminal Code Reform Act, is

one of the most serious threats to civil liberties ever

proposed by government officials in this nation's

history. Hearings on the bill are continuing before

the Senate Judiciary Committee where Senators

McClellan and Hruska, its chief backers, are

making numerous compromises to win moderate

and liberal support.

The ACLU is convinced that the measure must

be defeated since all of the egregious provisions of

the bill will never be amended out. Many liberals,

however, are still trying to make amendments. -

Final votes on the amendments are expected to

start in late February. Nobody knows for sure, but

at this point, S.1 has a good chance of being passed

by the Senate.

Letters to Senators Cranston and Tunney must

continue and the message must be that not only

should they themselves oppose the bill but they

should work hard to line up their colleagues in

opposition. The Senators' address is: Senate Office

Building, Washington, D.C. 20510.

Those sections blatantly violate freedom of speech,

and both the author and Common Cause agreed to

remove them. Other sections limiting individual

contributions and placing a ceiling on campaign

expenditures were additionally suspect as infringing

free expression.

Other sections of the bill call for the compilation of

contributor lists and endorsement cards (those

persons signing cards attesting to their endorsement

of a given candidate in order that the candidate can

qualify for matching funds). Staff was concerned that

these lists might not be used solely for their statutory

purpose, and that their general availability would

create an inherent chilling effect on political activity

and freedom of association.

An example of the problem created: an employee of

a conservatively-oriented company may hesitate to

sign an endorsement card or contribute to a Socialist

Workers or Peace and Freedom candidate, or even a

liberal Democratic candidate, for fear of reprisal if -

word of the contribution or endorsement is published.

However, these portions too could be amended

satisfactorily, for example, provisions sealing such

information could certainly be grafted on to the bill.

Thus, none of these considerations resulted in a

position of complete opposition to the bill.

In the final analysis, it was the creation of extensive

powers in the Fair Political Practices Commission,

and the massive complexity of the system created that

made the bill totally unacceptable.

In staff's view what was being created was another

system comparable to the income tax hierarchy - a

world so refined and so arcane as to be com-

prehensible only to the thoroughly trained and ex-

perienced. Income tax too was a reform - a leveling

influence on economic power in America. Its very

acceptance was a radical innovation. But as every

student studying law or accounting soon learns, in-

come tax and the ways of the IRS are knowable only to |

the rich and those already enfranchised. The

"loopholes"' _ popularly referred to by federal

politicians are not "Joopholes'' at all, but carefully

planned routes designed to be tread by those who

already know the way, and are equipped with proper

maps and charts.

In staffs view, political campaign financing as

defined by AB 2564 would also become the province of

those already enfranchised - placing those currently

disenfranchised even further from political power.

Experience with bureaus and commissions already

teaches us that regulatory bodies almost inevitably

become the creatures of the entities they are designed

to regulate, and it would be ostrichlike to assume that

the experience would be different with . public

~ financing. The importance of that experience in this

situation is augmented when we reflect that public

campaign financing goes to the very core of control of -

the political system - not just a piece of it.

Some public financing scheme may exist that does

~ not pose such a threat to civil liberties and political

freedom. Some very basic system of tax credits, for

_ example, or public forums paid for with state money

on an equal time basis.

For now, it appears that AB 2564 is dead. Though it -

cleared its policy committee - Assembly Elections

and Reapportionment - the author has announced

he intends to drop the bill, and the sheer expense of

the undertaking makes clearing the necessary fiscal

committee - Ways and Means - very unlikely. The

question now is - where do we go from here?

SB 1337

The ACLU has announced opposition to a

bill sponsored by Senators Stull and Way which at-

tempts to reverse the farm workers "access rule"

created by the' Agricultural Labor Relations Board.

SB 1337 would essentially redefine the Board's rule-

making powers to specifically exempt the authority fo

issue regulations which "`contravene, supersede, or

conflict with any other provision of law, including, but

not limited to (criminal laws forbidding pas upon

private property)."' =

The bill would also restate sections of the Labor

Code defining the right of employees to organize and

bargain collectively, to exempt exercise of rights which

"infringe upon the private property rights of any

citizen."'

The ACLU's opposition to SB 1337 is in line with

the First Amendment stand taken at the ALRB's

inception. At that time, the ACLU joined other

organizations in calling on the Board to

issue an access rule. Trespassing arrests in the Central

Valley and other agricultural areas in California by

county sheriffs sympathetic with grower interests,

`indicated at that time that many growers intended to

prevent farm worker organizers from organizing in

the fields, and in company-run living areas. The

situation evoked a conflict between the growers'

claimed property interests, and the right of in-

dividuals to freedom of speech and freedom of

association. The "`access rule" was designed to grant

organizers limited access to certain areas at certain

times of the day.

While the rule is essentially a compromise - a

limited easement for organizing - its promulgation

has met with bitter grower resistance, and has been

the subject of extensive litigation. The California

Supreme Court heard arguments on the access rule

question in December, 1975, and is expected to rule

- Shortly.

The Stull bill represents an attempt to resolve the

issue in the growers' favor legislatively. Other at-

tempts will no doubt be made throughout the session,

and they have to be regarded seriously because the

Board needs extensive additional funding from the

Legislature if it is to fulfill its statutory mandate to

Serve as arbiter in the fields.

Legislative Action

On January 17, the Chapter Committee spon--

sored a conference on Legislative Action. It was

agreed by all those who attended that the ACLU

has valuable resources which must be incorporated

into our lobbying efforts. The impeachment

campaign proved that the ACLU can be effective

through grass roots. legislative advocacy in a

dramatic way.

We have members who are leaders in their

communities, who know many others in their

`communities, and even know many of our state and

national legislators.

It is one thing when a legislator is visited by an

ACLU lobbyist in Sacramento to discuss a par-

`ticular bill, and quite another when that same

-legislator receives letters and visits from ACLU

members on that same issue the same week in his

district office. Legislators must be made to realize

that ACLU representatives in the capital are

supported and backed by thousands of concerned

and committed voters and constituents. :

Right now is the time to get started. The first

thing we need to know is who can help. If you can

volunteer on this effort, please fill out the coupon

below and return it to the office right away. From

the responses, we will organize chapter legislative

committees, phone trees, district committees and

letter campaigns: LET US KNOW a YOU

CAN DO TODAY.

1

I

I

|

I

I

i

I

!

L

I

I

|

|

|

I

|

I

|

|

|

|

l

I

5

THE CIVIL LIBERTIES LOBBY

I want to volunteer:

NAME

ADDRESS

CITY. = ZAP

PHONE

[ | write letters

ICan.

[ ]call legislators

[ ] make visits [ ] contact others

ASSEMBLYPERSON Dist#

STATE SENATOR Dist#

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE Dist#

Return to: ACLU Lobbying, 814 Mission St., San

Francisco, Ca. 94103

oa SS Ln

' the National -

4 Jan. 1976

aclu news

CHAPTERS

Yolo

Assemblymen John Vasconcellos and

recently elected Vic Fazio were the

honored guests at a reception of the

Yolo County ACLU Chapter. Besides

giving members a chance to renew

acquaintances, the event was a very

successful fundraiser and new mem-

bership attraction.

Assemblyman Vasconcellos was

honored by virtue of his recent 100%

rating by the ACLU Board of Southern

California for his assembly voting

record on civil liberties related issues.

The Yolo County Chapter also

recently acquired a _ temporary

restraining order against the University

of California at Davis preventing the

University administration from

withholding registration papers of

students with outstanding bills. The

Court held that the students' due

process rights were abridged by not

providing hearing and appeal

mechanisms for students with ob-

jections to the outstanding bills.

Civil liberties aspects of nuclear

power production and the up-coming

Nuclear Power Initiative were presented

to the Yolo County Board at its

January meeting by representatives of

The Sacramento Chapter. The Board

will now consider recommendation on

this complex issue to the Northern

California Board.

As a further safeguard to community

civil liberties, the Yolo County Chapter"

has instigated a `"`civil liberties hot

line." Citizens recognizing violations of

civil liberties are encouraged to call the

24 hour hot-line at 758-1301 for in-

vestigation and help on those problems.

San Francisco

- THEATER PARTY

The S.F. Chapter will hold a

benefit on February 2. The film

Hester Street will be shown at the

Lumiere Theater, 1572 California

Street, near Polk, at 8 P.M. Tickets

are $5.00 each and may be obtained

by calling the Chapter office 777-

4880. We will hold the tickets for you

at the box office.

SENATE BILL 1

The Chapter's first public meeting

held December 7, was well attended.

Frank Wilkinson, Executive Director of

Committee:

`Manson' appeal

continued from page I

"Defendants have a right to a fair

trial before an unprejudiced jury, but

there are plenty of ways to ensure that

without press and film censorship,"'

Marson noted. Among those, he listed

questioning of potential jurors by

judges and lawyers to determine

prejudice, locking up the jury during

the trial, changing the site of a trial to

some other area when no local jurors

free from prejudice can be found, and

reversing an unfair conviction on.

appeal.

Marson concluded, `Prior restraints

on publications interfere with the right

of the public and could aid corrupt

officials in cover-up attempts. That's

what the right to free speech and press

is all about."

Treasurer, (c)

Against

Repressive Legislation told the

audience that S.1, the Criminal Justice

Reform Act of 1975 is a = euphemisn

for repression."'

He further mentioned that S.1 would

circumvent the 1972 Supreme Court

_ decision holding the death penalty to be

cruel and unusual punishment, would

expand the areas in which wiretapping

is allowed, and do numerous other

things to subvert civil liberties. -

"S.1 is a blueprint to suppress every

single movement for social change

we've ever had,' Mr. Wilkinson

continued. A telegram received from.

- Senator Tunney stated:

"As your

December 7 conference on S.1 takes

place, please be assured of my con-

tinued opposition to this most per-

nicious bill. S.1 cannot hope to suc-

_ cessfully fight crime while at the same

time weakening the very fibre of our

constitutional heritage. Codification

. making order out of the Federal

Criminal Law quagmire is certainly

needed, but S.1 in its present form

threatens our civil liberties and must be

defeated. Sincerely, John V. Tunney,

-Senator."'

Anson Moran, a member of the S.F.

Board will head up a special S.1

committee to develop plans for use

in the community. Members of the

Chapter who wish to work on this

committee, should contact Mr. Moran

at 777-4880.

The newly elected officers of the S.F.

Chapter are: Ruth Jacobs, President; -

Lorraine Honig, Bruce Johnston, M.D.,

Anson Moran, Vice-Presidents;

Ernest Fleischman;

Secretary, Frances Strauss.

CIVIL LIBERTIES: THE BILL OF

RIGHTS AND ME Essay Contest

The Essay contest for S.F. High

School students closes on January 31.

All essays must be submitted to 814

Mission. Street, San Francisco 94103.

Winners will be announced next

issue.

The Nomination Committee is ac-

cepting names for Board membership.

Please address your communications to

the Nominating Committee, S.F.

Chapter, 814 Mission Street, S.F.

94103.

' Chapter members are always

welcome at the monthly Board of

Directors meeting. Should you wish to

attend, please call our office, 777-4880,

advise our staff member that you plan -

to attend.

We have a variety of committees that

need workers. The committees are:

Legislative, Membership,

Education, Goals and Priorities. Please

select the committee of interest to you,

notify the office and you'll be contacted

by the committee chairperson.

Fresno

We have reserved Monday, Feb. 9 at

7:30 P.M. at the Fresno Unitarian

Church, 4144 North Millbrook Ave.

(just south of Ashland) for our next

chapter program meeting. The topic

will be `Affirmative Action: the

Promise and the Problems," with a

panel discussion on implementing (c)

affirmative action while dealing with

issues such as quotas, reverse

discrimination and seniority rights.

Participants include Cilia Gomez, the

coordinator at

affirmative action

Finance, 0x00B0

C.S.U.F.; Jane Edgett, president of the

local N.O.W. chapter and a union

organizer; plus other involved persons

from the local community.

All ACLU members and interested

non-members are invited. There will be

ample time for questions and refresh-

ments will be available. __

Mt. Diablo

All members are welcome to attend

the Chapter's board meetings any time.

They are held the second Wednesday of

each month. Members may call

Chairperson Johnson Clark (283-1747)

for time and place. Remember. The

Chapter's phone number is 939-ACLU

for information about possible civil

liberties violations.

THEATER PARTY

Friday, February 13

Everyone had such a good time last

year at the theater party that this will be

the Chapter's only fundraising effort in

1976. Please reserve this date and plan

to attend. It will be an enjoyable way to

help the Chapter and have a Valentine

Party, too.

PLAY: `Pursuit of Happiness"

TIME: 8:30 p.m., Friday, February 13

PLACE: Lafayette Town Hall, corner of

Moraga Road and School Street

PRICE: $5.00 per person

TICKETS: Call Johnson Clark, 283-

1747

Wine, fruit drinks, coffee and tea will

be served at intermission and after the

play - FREE! Plan to stay, visit with

friends and meet the cast.

Santa Clara

The Santa Clara Valley Chapter's

Membership Meeting will be held on

February 28 with Congressman Don

Edwards as the guest speaker.

Congressman Edwards is a long-time

ACLU member and a former FBI

- agent. His talk on S.1 and a substitute

Criminal Code Reform bill which he

has co-sponsored should be of wide

interest to the membership and

_ members are encouraged to attend this

important meeting. This yearly get

together has, for the past several years,

been one of the most enjoyable activities

of this chapter. It provides an op-

portunity for local civil libertarians to

hear one of our governmental

' representatives speak about a timely

subject and to talk to him and each

other while -enjoying refreshments

provided by the chapter board mem-

bers. Specific details as to time and

place will be announced in the chapter

newsletter and by local media.

A new San Jose ordinance making

mandatory a fee for~ garbage service,

whether or not the home uses the

garbage service, is being studied by

Attorney Jim King and committee.

Some citizens insist they do not use or

need a garbage service and should not

have to pay this fee. Other citizens are

claiming that these non-subscribers use

other people's garbage cans and are

putting an unfair burden on fee-paying

_ `citizens. Let's hope that the spirit of

'76 will not bring us the scene of a San

Jose G party in Alviso harbor!

A series of Free Speech and Public

Service messages on Senate Bill 1 have ~

been made for area radio stations. The

Speakers Bureau is providing speakers

for area organizations and churches

and guest editorials are being published

by area newspapers on the subject of

this most repressive bill.

Stockton

February 22nd has been selected by

the Stockton Chapter for a Bicentennial

Forum centered around the Bill of

Rights. The forum will be held at the

Filipino Community Hall, 435-437

South California, beginning at 2 P.M.

' Speakers will include Chuck Marson of

the ACLUNC legal staff, Marvin

Marks, Stockton ACLU attorney,

Alfred Bonner, Stockton ACLU Legal

committee, and Beverly Ford,

ACLUNC Board member.

The annual dinner meeting and

election of officers and board members

will take place on February 27th. David

Fishlow will speak on S.1.

Oakland

The Oakland Chapter has been

holding its regular meetings at the

Sumitomo Bank in downtown Oakland

the third Wednesday of each month at

7:30 p.m. Over the recent months guest

speakers have included an Oakland

police officer presenting a look at civil

liberties from a police perspective;

Frank Wilkinson speaking on SB 1;

and a local attorney addressing the

nuclear initiative issue. The meetings _

are open to the public and anyone

wishing to attend is welcome.

Committee Notices:

Privacy - Meeting February 8, 7:30 p.m.

`at 844 Northvale Road, Oakland.

Anyone interested in attending please

call Phil Thomas at 7 1838 after 7

p.m.

Political Repression - Meeting February

10, 8:00 p.m. at 3450-38th Avenue,

Oakland. Much help is needed with our

current fight against SB 1. We are

setting up letter-writing tables at

various East Bay locations to inform

Senators Cranston and Tunney about

our deep opposition to this repressive

bill. The response has been very |

heartening from people stopping at the

tables, but more help is definitely

' needed! If you would like to help, please

call Chrys Dougherty at 893-2454 or

Dar Coppersmith at 530-1221.

aclu news

9 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in March-April, July-August,

and November-December

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Second Class Mail privileges authocized at San Francisco, California

Richard DeLancie, Chairman of the Board, David M. Fishlow, Executive Director

Mike Callahan, Editor and Assistant Executive Director

814 Mission Street, San Francisco, California 94103 - 777-4545

Membership $15 and up of which $2.50 is the annual subscription fee for the News.