ACLU asks Richmond to allow Occupy protests
The ACLU of Virginia has asked Mayor Dwight Jones of Richmond to reconsider his decision to toss Occupy Richmond campers from a Downtown Richmond public park.
In a letter faxed earlier today, ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis notes that the Richmond police had originally told demonstrators they would be allowed to remain overnight. This is in keeping with many other cities, including Washington, D.C. and Cleveland, where campers have been allowed to camp overnight in public parks.
In D.C., campers in Freedom Plaza were told they may remain as long as four months. In Cleveland, protestors are not only camping overnight, but police have apparently distributed camping gear to demonstrators.
“There is nothing more American than the First Amendment right to protest in public, and it is incumbent upon public leaders to make sure that both the letter and spirit of that constitutional right are protected and perpetuated,” said Willis.
“We’re asking Mayor Jones to listen to his police department, which apparently sees no problem with the overnight campers, and to his conscience, and to reverse his decision to throw out the campers,” added Willis. “It’s not too late to be a help to demonstrators, rather than a hindrance.”
Members of the Occupy Richmond group met with ACLU representatives today to report that they had first been told they could remain overnight but that the mayor had overruled the police department’s decision.
ACLU: Sidewalk in front of Roanoke City Market is public forum
The ACLU of Virginia on Friday informed the Chairman and the Legal Counsel for the Market Building Foundation that it cannot ban demonstrations from the sidewalk in front of the Roanoke City Market Building.
The Foundation, which leases the property from the City of Roanoke, recently voted to deny all requests to assemble on the sidewalk.
The sidewalk has been used on numerous occasions over many years for demonstrations and protests.
In a letter, ACLU of Virginia Legal Director Rebecca K. Glenberg points to court rulings holding that traditional public forums, such as sidewalks and town squares, that are leased to private organizations are still public forums.
Glenberg notes that attempts to ban demonstrators from the cobblestone walkways in Boston’s Faneuil Hall complex and preachers from the Rose Quarter Commons in Portland failed even though the properties in question were leased by private companies. In both cases, the court held that private groups renting public forums from the city government must follow the First Amendment’s dictates of free speech.
“The right to free speech in a government-owned public forum does not dissolve merely because the forum is leased to a private entity,” said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis. “It still belongs to the public and the public still has a right to use it.”
Glenberg writes, “… the Market Building Foundation Board must follow constitutional norms when regulating speech on the sidewalk in front of the City Market Building. The First Amendment allows for reasonable time, place and manner regulations of speech, but an outright ban on assemblies on the sidewalk is not permissible.”
ACLU encourages non-disruptive protests at Va. high school
The ACLU of Virginia has informed school officials at Colonial Forge High School in Stafford County that they must allow students to wear “Free Banana Man” t-shirts to protest the suspension of a fellow student who sprinted around the football field wearing a banana costume last Friday night.
The student, Bryan Thompson, apparently did not interfere with the game or any other official activity, but according to press reports was suspended by Principal Karen Spillman for 10 days. Spillman is recommending that the suspension be extended until the end of the school year.
The ACLU received inquiries today from students who were affected by, or knew of, the ban on the t-shirts. Students wearing or carrying the t-shirts were told to remove them or had them confiscated by school officials.
“It is well established law that students do not lose their free speech rights at the schoolhouse door,” said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis. “Students are not permitted to engage in an activity that disrupts the educational process, but they can express their views in school.”
In 1968, the Supreme Court in Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District upheld the right of junior high school student Mary Beth Tinker to wear to school an armband protesting the war in Vietnam.
“If the Supreme Court says the First Amendment allows a student to protest a highly controversial war by wearing an armband to school, then Colonial Forge High School students can certainly wear t-shirts demonstrating their displeasure with the school’s decision to suspend a fellow classmate,” added Willis.
In a letter faxed to Spillman, ACLU of Virginia Legal Director Rebecca Glenberg wrote: “Based on our understanding of the facts, it appears that some students at your school have strong feelings about the discipline of a fellow student, and that they have chosen to express those feelings in a passive, non-disruptive manner. We ask that you respect their constitutional right to free speech.”
ACLU sues Giles County over Ten Commandments display
The ACLU of Virginia today filed suit against the Giles County School Board for posting the Ten Commandments on the wall at Narrows High School in Narrows, Virginia. The lawsuit contends that the display violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Ten Commandments is posted on a main hallway at the high school, near the trophy case and on the way to the cafeteria, where it can be seen by students every day. It is surrounded by historical documents relating to American history, such as the Declaration of Independence, the Star-Spangled Banner, and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.
The lawsuit was filed today on behalf of a Narrows High School student, suing under the name Doe 1, and the student’s parent, suing under the name Doe 2. The plaintiffs do not want to use their real name because they fear retaliation from community members who have displayed scorn and anger toward those who have complained about the Ten Commandments display.
The complaint explains that the Ten Commandments display makes Doe 1 feel like an outsider in his own school, because the school is endorsing religious beliefs to which he does not subscribe. Doe 1′s parent, Doe 2, objects to the display because it usurps the parent’s right to control the religious education of Doe 1.
“The Ten Commandments were clearly placed in Giles County public schools to promote religion, and that violates the First Amendment of the Constitution,” said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis. “School board members cannot camouflage their religious purpose by hiding the Ten Commandments among other documents.”
For years, Giles County schools posted a framed copy of the Ten Commandments along with the U.S. Constitution, but after complaints from the Freedom From Religion Foundation last fall, the school superintendent ordered them taken down. The school board, however, in a meeting attended by 200 residents urging restoration of the display, voted to overturn the superintendent’s decision. Only after the ACLU and the Freedom From Religion Foundation threatened litigation did the school board reverse itself and order the Ten Commandments taken down again. Then, in June, the school board authorized the posting of the Ten Commandments with historical documents. However, Narrows High School is the only school so far to post the display.
“Schools best respect religious freedom when they allow students to express their religious beliefs, but refrain from expressing religious opinions of their own,” said Willis. “That is not what has happened here.”
ACLU seeks details on government’s phone tracking
In a massive coordinated information-seeking campaign, the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia and 33 other affiliates across the nation today are sending requests to more than 375 local law enforcement agencies large and small demanding to know when, why and how they are using cell phone location data to track Americans. The Virginia affiliate submitted its request to the Fairfax County Police Department.
“Cell phones today are an everyday accessory for most people,” said ACLU of Virginia Legal Director Rebecca Glenberg. “The idea of law enforcement engaging in unfettered cell phone location monitoring of Americans without probable cause or a warrant raises major privacy concerns.”
The campaign is one of the largest coordinated information act requests in American history. The requests, being filed under the states’ freedom of information laws, are an effort to strip away the secrecy that has surrounded law enforcement use of cell phone tracking capabilities.
“The ability to access cell phone location data is an incredibly powerful tool and its use is shrouded in secrecy. The public has a right to know how and under what circumstances their location information is being accessed by the government,” said Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. “A detailed history of someone’s movements is extremely personal and is the kind of information the Constitution protects.”
Law enforcement agencies are being asked for information including:
· whether law enforcement agents demonstrate probable cause and obtain a warrant to
access cell phone location data;
· statistics on how frequently law enforcement agencies obtain cell phone location data;
· how much money law enforcement agencies spend tracking cell phones and
· other policies and procedures used for acquiring location data.
Law enforcement’s use of cell phone location data has been widespread for years, although it has become increasingly controversial. Just last week, the general counsel of the National Security Agency suggested to members of Congress that the NSA might have the authority to collect the location information of American citizens inside the U.S. Also, this spring, researchers revealed that iPhones were collecting and storing location information in unknown files on the phone.
During the 2011 session, the Virginia General Assembly considered a bill that would prohibit the placement of electronic tracking devices on motor vehicles without the permission of the vehicle’s owner, unless placed by the vehicle manufacturer, law enforcement, or a parent of a minor. The ACLU of Virginia advocated for an amendment requiring law enforcement to first obtain a warrant. The bill passed the House of Delegates, but failed in the Senate Courts of Justice Committee.
While the legislature may again consider such a bill in the 2012 session, it is unlikely to pass one with a case pending in the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court has agreed to decide whether police need a warrant to place a GPS tracking device on a person’s vehicle. While that case does not involve cell phones, it could influence the rules police have to follow for cell phone tracking.
Congress is considering the Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act, a bill supported by the ACLU that would require police to get a warrant to obtain personal location information. The bill would protect both historical and real-time location data, and would also require customers’ consent for telecommunications companies to collect location data.
Today’s requests are part of the ACLU’s Demand Your dotRights Campaign, the organization’s campaign to make sure that as technology advances, privacy rights are not left behind.
Requests were also filed by ACLU affiliates in Alabama, Arizona, Northern California, Southern California, San Diego and Imperial Counties, Connecticut, Washington D.C., Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Eastern Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
ACLU tells jail officials to accommodate Muslim inmates during Ramadan
The ACLU of Virginia today sent an email to local and regional jail officials reminding them that they must allow Muslim inmates to take their meals between sundown and sunrise during the holy month of Ramadan. Ramadan begins on August 1 and ends with the celebration of Eid ul-Fitr on August 30.
The ACLU’s warning is based on past complaints from inmates that they have not been allowed to change the times at which they take meals in order to comply with the fasting rules of Ramadan.
“Incarceration does not include the suppression of faith,” said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis. “The courts and Congress have made it absolutely clear that the right of inmates to practice their religion is protected so long as it is within reason and does not impose a security threat.”
In his email, ACLU of Virginia Dunn Fellow Thomas Okuda Fitzpatrick reminds jail officials that during Ramadan the Virginia Department of Corrections provides Muslim inmates in its custody with a morning meal that is served before dawn, a meal after sunset, and a bagged meal that can be consumed during the night.
“This is a simple, inexpensive accommodation of religious beliefs that is available for most incarcerated persons in Virginia,” said Fitzpatrick. “Unfortunately, it is not a practice universally followed by local jails and prisons. We’re hoping that this reminder will serve as a wake-up call for jail officials, but we are prepared to provide assistance to inmates who tell us they are not being accommodated.”
Fitzpatrick also notes that courts have upheld the right of prisoners to practice their religious belief under both the First Amendment of the Constitution and under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act where federal financial support is involved.
“Today we write about Muslims because we have received complaints that their requests for religious accommodation have been ignored by jail officials,” added Willis. “But the real issue here is every person of faith who is incarcerated in Virginia. Each has a right to practice his or her religion under the Constitution and federal law.”
ACLU raises issue with McDonnell letter on judicial appointments
The ACLU of Virginia has asked Gov. Bob McDonnell to revise or remove from his questionnaire for judicial applicants two questions regarding mental and physical disabilities that may violate the American with Disabilities Act.
“These questions are unnecessary, inappropriate, invasive, and very likely illegal,” said ACLU of Virginia Executive Director Kent Willis. “Persons with disabilities fought for many years to eliminate employment and other forms of discrimination against them. The governor’s questions are an affront to them and the law, and we hope he will move swiftly to remove them.”
ACLU of Virginia Legal Director Rebecca K. Glenberg made the request in a letter sent on July 7, but as of this writing has not received a response. A recent check of the governor’s website for judicial appointments indicates that the application is still in use.
Question 38(c) of the Judicial Selection Questionnaire asks, “Have you ever been treated for any emotional or mental illness or condition. If so, please give the particulars.” Question 38(d) asks, “Do you suffer from any impairment of eyesight or hearing or any other physical limitation?”
Addressing the question about mental disabilities, Glenberg wrote: “The question …is highly intrusive and far broader than necessary to identify individuals who may lack judicial judgment or temperament….The vast number of persons who suffer (or have suffered) from some kind of mental or emotional impairment would not…be prevented from acting competently as a judge.”
On the issue of physical impairments, Glenberg wrote: “Manifestly, hearing and vision impairments have nothing to do with the ability to function as a judge. They do not affect a person’s judgment, intelligence, or temperament. With the availability of Braille, sign language interpreters, and a multitude of assistive technologies, there is no reason why a person with hearing or vision problems should be unable to perform judicial duties.”
