ACLU In The News

[Soldier4Christ]

Public Hearing On Drug Dogs At Marin Middle School

Trustees of the Sausalito Marin City School District are vowing to press ahead with plans to bring drug-sniffing dogs to a local middle school.

The plan has come under fire from parents, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

But Board President George Stratigos says a majority of the trustees will not back away from their decision to have the dogs sniff-out the personal belongings of students at Martin Luther King Junior Middle School.

The trustees say they have no evidence drugs are being brought to the school but want to use the monthly inspections to avoid potential problems. A public hearing on the issue is scheduled for Monday night.

Under the program, students would be required to leave their classrooms while the dogs from a Houston firm sniff their backpacks. The inspections would continue until the end of the school year at a cost of $2500.

[Soldier4Christ]

Federal Appeals Court Panel Upholds Tennessee Statute Allowing 'Choose Life' License Plates

A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati on Friday voted 2-1 to uphold a Tennessee statute that authorizes the production and sale of "Choose Life" specialty license plates, the AP/San Diego Union-Tribune reports (Johnson, AP/San Diego Union-Tribune, 3/17). The state Legislature in 2003 enacted the measure authorizing the production of the plates, and Gov. Phil Bredesen (D) allowed it to become law without his signature. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the American Civil Liberties Union in November 2003 filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court to prevent the state from distributing Choose Life plates, alleging that the manner in which the state approves license plates is unconstitutional and allows the state to endorse some political issues while ignoring others. U.S. District Judge Todd Campbell in September 2004 ruled that the law is unconstitutional because the government is engaging in "viewpoint discrimination." New Life Resources, a group associated with Tennessee Right to Life and a beneficiary of the money collected through the sale of the plates, appealed Campbell's ruling. The group contends the plate's message is similar to government-sponsored public service announcements urging people to quit smoking or students to stay in school (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 11/4/05). According to the AP/Union-Tribune, the Tennessee Legislature rejected a "Choose Choice" license plate option in 2002 (AP/San Diego Union-Tribune, 3/17).

Ruling, Dissent
In the 6th Circuit Court panel's majority opinion, Judge John Rogers said, "Although this exercise of government one-sidedness with respect to a very contentious political issue may be ill-advised, we are unable to conclude that the Tennessee statute contravenes the First Amendment." Judge Boyce Martin in a dissenting opinion called the statute unconstitutional because it fails to represent both sides of the abortion debate. Shortly after the ruling, Kentucky state officials said that they would begin offering Choose Life license plates in a few months. Thirteen states offer a Choose Life license plate.

 

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Backs Reid/Clinton Contraception Bill


The American Civil Liberties Union has released a statement “hailing” a bill which would increase funding for programs that they claim are aimed at preventing unwanted pregnancies. They do so while adamantly opposing all efforts to teach the one birth control program that is known to work 100% of the time it is tried, abstinence. The ACLU has recently gotten the federal government to pull funding for abstinence only programs but yet hails the use of federal funding for distribution of condoms, instructions on their use, advocates the sale of Plan B over-the-counter for “women” 16 and over, federally funded birth-control, and federally funded abortion.

This latest heralding of a bill introduced by liberal Senators Harry “The Sleeping Pill” Reid (D NV) and Hillary “I’ll Never Be President” Clinton (D NY) would increase federal funding for the following programs:

1) Requires coverage for prescription contraceptives in otherwise comprehensive drug benefit plans. [Government regulation of private industry. After all, insurance companies are not arms of the federal government.]

2) Promote awareness of emergency contraception. [Forget about taking personal responsibility for your actions. Let’s just eliminate and cover up using a pill called Plan B. That’s a Clinton deal all the way.]

3) Fund medically accurate programs to reduce teen pregnancy. [But ignore teaching avoidance of what causes pregnancy in the first place.]

4) Increase family planning services for low-income women. [Code for Abortion - After all, what is Planned Parenthood?]

The left’s answer for every difficult problem is to get rid of it quickly as possible and forget that it occurred. A girl gets herself in a family way because she made the following WRONG decisions.

1) She chose to have sex.

2) She chose to not use protection at the time of the sex act.

And then the left would have the girl make more WRONG decisions by using Plan B or RU486 to terminate the pregnancy or result to using a procedure which has been linked to increased occurrences of breast cancer, post abortive infections, and depression brought on the remorse of having the abortion. The vast majority of women who have an abortion will have more of them. It is seen as a quick and easy resolution to a problem brought on by irresponsible behavior.

I believe that it is a crime to use federal tax money collected from vast numbers of people who don’t believe in artificial birth control because a segment of the population decides to have irresponsible sexual relations. Some religious communities have strong beliefs against premarital sex. This bill would force these people to pay for artificial contraception without teaching abstinence programs which is the only 100% effective form of birth control. It works 100% of the time that it is employed. You can’t get pregnant if you don’t have sex.

But the ACLU objects to ANY restrictions on social behavior. In their minds you should be free to do whatever you want whenever you want to do it. And if something negative happens, the federal government should pay for you to correct the problem. Personal responsibility is something that is foreign to the thinking processes of not only the ACLU, but every one of these so-called free-thinking liberal minding morons in this nation. Why should I pay for your mistakes?

If these irresponsible people were forced to live with the consequences of their bad decisions, perhaps this would become a deterrent to irresponsible behavior.

[Soldier4Christ]

Soldier will not be deployed to Afghanistan

FORT DRUM, N.Y. The Army has agreed not to send a Fort Drum soldier and practicing Buddhist to Afghanistan while his conscientious-objector application is pending.
A federal judge ordered the move.

Twenty-four-year-old Corey Martin of South Dakota applied for discharge in December. Then the Army ordered him sent to Afghanistan on March 14th.

Lawyers for the New York Civil Liberties Union are representing Martin.

Martin joined the Army in June 2001.

In court documents, he said his anti-war feelings surfaced during a Christmas visit with his family in 2002.

He said he realized his intelligence job, quote, "would cause the death of a person who might otherwise live."

[Soldier4Christ]

Photographer detained in White Plains wants apology

Ben Hider, a terrorist?

No, but the 27-year-old photographer from England said he was treated like one Friday when he whipped out his camera and snapped pictures of the West-chester County courthouse.

Hider said three armed police officers instantly surrounded him, frisked him, emptied his pockets and then detained him in a room for two hours while lecturing him about his citizenship and the terror threat in America.

The photographer demanded an apology, and got one late yesterday from the state Office of Court Administration, which called to express regrets over the "unfortunate" incident and said it would explain to local officers that there's no rule against photographing the courthouse. But the union representing the court officers said the officers acted appropriately, especially since they have been getting conflicting instructions on dealing with such situations.

"No apology is called for," said John McKillop, president of the state Supreme Court Officers Association. "These officers were doing their job. My problem here is that there are no policies whatsoever regarding issues like this, and the officers have to fend for themselves. In previous incidents, court officers were criticized for not detaining people, who were taking pictures of that very same facility."

The executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union expressed outrage over the treatment of Hider and said this sort of thing has been an ongoing problem since the Sept. 11 terror attacks. That agency is currently suing New York City after it detaining a videographer who took pictures outside Grand Central Terminal, and recently pressured the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to stop threatening people who photograph subway and train stations.

"It seems the court officers need a bit of a lecture about fundamental rights and their obligation to respect them," Donna Lieberman said.

Hider lives in White Plains and has a green card to work in this country. He moved to the U.S. from England in 1998. The graduate of Purchase College, SUNY, works as an intern in Manhattan for World Picture Network. About 10 a.m. Friday, he was walking to the train station, on his way to a dentist appointment in Scarsdale, when he saw the flag waving outside the courthouse on Martine Avenue.

"It just looked nice," said Hider, who grabbed his digital camera and started taking pictures. Then, he said, "I heard them yelling for me to stop."

When he asked why he was being targeted, they told him it was because of the terrorist threat in America and told him he was taking pictures of an official government building.

"Then they found out I wasn't a citizen and said that would not help my case," Hider said.

They took him into the courthouse, where they searched him, took pictures of him, copied his identification papers, and peppered him with questions.

"I was terrified," he said. "Having the words 'terrorist' and 'noncitizen' and all that stuff thrown at me was a scary thing. Then once I could collect my senses and realized that I did nothing wrong, I realized nothing could happen. Then I became more annoyed." Initially, the officers told him they contacted the counterterrorism task force and that members would be there soon. But after two hours, no one showed up, and Hider was let go.

"While I was being escorted out, the officer told me I was really lucky that this other terrorism unit didn't show up because 99 percent of the noncitizens that get taken by them are never seen again," Hider said. "So then he told me I should really think about getting my citizenship."

Willard Bodie, chief court officer of the 9th Judicial District, which includes the county courthouse, confirmed that the officers did question Hider for photographing the courthouse.

"It's all post-9/11," he said. "We take an interest in things we never took an interest in before. It's a new day and age."

Bodie would not name the officers involved, and said he didn't believe they were threatening to Hider in any way.

While he offered no apologies for their actions, the Office of Court Administration did.

"What happened to Mr. Hider is most unfortunate," OCA spokesman David Bookstaver told The Journal News. "It was inconsistent with our policies and we will be reaching out at the highest level to personally apologize to Mr. Hider. Further, we have clarified and crystalized our policies as it pertains to individuals taking photographs in public areas outside the courthouse."

McKillop said this was just a "knee-jerk reaction by Bookstaver because there's a commotion."

"I'd like them to show me a policy on this," he said.

Late yesterday, First Deputy Chief Administrative Justice Ann Pfau called Hider to apologize, though Hider said he's really hoping to hear from the officers.

"I want an apology from those officers because I want them to admit they were in the wrong for holding me for two hours for just taking pictures of flags," he said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Specialty tags widen the gap

Do Tennesseans want state government to collect donations for the anti-abortion movement and promote Christianity?

A fair number of state legislators apparently believe that's the case, given the support that is being given to controversial and divisive messages, one approved and one proposed, for specialty license plates.

So far Tennessee legislators haven't gone quite as far as Missouri state Rep. David Sater, the sponsor of a resolution that would designate Christianity as Missouri's official "majority" religion.

Opposition has been slow to develop, however, against a proposed new specialty plate depicting a stylized fish silhouette that has become a popular symbol for Christianity.

And some Tennessee legislators are celebrating the decision by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati to allow Tennessee to offer "Choose Life" license plates, devoting some of the proceeds to the abortion alternatives group New Life Resources.

There have always been efforts to cast government on one side or the other in divisive religious and moral debates, but using specialty license tags as the vehicle for controversial messages is a relatively new twist on the theme. The General Assembly needs to have a serious conversation about this program before it gets out of hand.

The 6th Circuit decision was hailed by state Rep. Glen Casada, R-College Grove, as "a victory for the First Amendment and the doctrine of separation of powers" as well as "a victory for the unborn."

"The public square," he said, "should be a place where all ideas are welcomed, not just those approved by the (American Civil Liberties Union)."

In fact, if the specialty license plate program is a public square, in this case not all ideas are welcome. The General Assembly has rejected a specialty plate bearing a pro-choice viewpoint.

As to First Amendment rights, a rejection of the anti-abortion specialty plate would not have interfered with an individual's right to express his or her opinion on the abortion debate.

Opinions on the question are expressed openly on motor vehicle bumper stickers, billboards, fliers and other media without interference.

Neither could approval of a new tag depicting Christian symbolism be defended as a blow for individual liberty. Various Christian symbols are commonly displayed on cars and trucks.

Numerous court decisions, however, have sought to keep government out of the business of promoting religious doctrine, based on a clearly stated Constitutional prohibition.

Even the 6th Circuit stated in its opinion supporting the state's right to issue "Choose Life" tags that "this exercise of government one-sidedness with respect to a very contentious political issue may be ill-advised."

Look for more ill-advised decisions on specialty plates if the program continues much longer.

License plates serve a useful purpose for police officers who need to know whom they're stopping on the highway. They're a poor stand-in for the public square.

[Shammu]

 Deltona Mayor Who Censored Religious Paintings Has Ties To ACLU

Deltona Mayor Who Unsuccessfully Tried to Censor Religious Paintings Says the ACLU Shaped His Political Philosophy

A week after Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit over censored religious paintings, Deltona Mayor Dennis Mulder sent an email to George Griffin, President of the Volusia/Flagler chapter of the ACLU, stating: "The importance of the ACLU is immeasurable to me, my life, and my political philosophy." Explaining why he was unable to attend the ACLU meeting, the next sentence asked Griffin to "Please share my thoughts with the group."

After Mayor Mulder and acting City Manager/City Attorney, L. Roland Blossom removed paintings by Lloyd Marcus from a Black History Month display due to their religious themes, Liberty Counsel sent two letters, one explaining the law and the second demanding the paintings be returned. When Mulder and Blossom refused, Liberty Counsel filed suit. At an emergency meeting of the City Commission, Mulder and Blossom backed down and the paintings were displayed.

Public records now reveal that Mayor Mulder has close ties to the ACLU. In one email sent to Mulder, ACLU President, George Griffin, suggested that Mulder could "save face" by claiming that he sought a "second, expert, legal opinion" from the ACLU and decided to display the paintings. The ACLU wrote that if Mulder would state he got advice from the ACLU, "it would irritate the hell out of them [Liberty Counsel]." A week later, Mulder wrote to Griffin that the "importance of the ACLU is immeasurable to me, my life, and my political philosophy."

Since Mulder's political philosophy has been shaped by the ACLU, we looked at a list of some activities of the Florida ACLU. Their web site reveals the group opposed an ordinance to seal magazines deemed harmful to juveniles, opposed the use of school property for use after school hours by religious organizations, opposed the distribution of Bibles by the Gideons, opposed a committee to review films and course material for state schools to comply with community standards on pornography, fought for physician-assisted suicide, fought to overturn a ban on homosexual adoption, opposed parents being notified of their child's abortion, supported partial birth abortion, defended a nude demonstration, tried to force a school district to censor religious speech of students, and opposes the right of citizens to pass an amendment that declares marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The web site does not reveal that the ACLU lost is 8-1/2 year attempt to silent student religious speech, a case Liberty Counsel defended. The web site also does not reveal that the ACLU lost its attempt to evict churches from renting school facilities after school hours, a case also defended by Liberty Counsel. Perhaps Mayor Mulder should have done a little more research about correct legal philosophy before censoring religious expression.

Rather than having his life and political philosophy shaped by the ACLU, Mayor Dennis Mulder should read the Constitution. He would find that the First Amendment is a friend, not a foe, of religious expression.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Challenges Drugs-Related Ban on U.S. Student Aid (Update1)

March 22 (Bloomberg) -- The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit seeking to overturn a U.S. law that makes students ineligible for federally backed college loans once they have been convicted on a drug charge.

The suit, filed today in U.S. District Court in South Dakota, contends the law enacted in 1998 violates due-process and double-jeopardy provisions of the U.S. Constitution. It names U.S. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings as the defendant. The department has no comment on the case, spokesman Chad Colby said.

The law discriminates against poorer students who rely on federal aid to pay tuition, said South Dakota college senior Kraig Selken, one of three plaintiffs in the case. Selken, who lost his student aid after a marijuana conviction, said students have a harder time improving their lives because of the law.

``The thing that it ends up being aimed at is just to deter education,'' Selken, a 21-year-old history major at Northern State University in Aberdeen, South Dakota, said in an interview. ``It's not about deterring drug use.''

The federal government spends more than $78 billion a year on student financial aid. Nearly two-thirds of the nation's 19 million undergraduate students receive some type of assistance, according to the U.S. Department of Education.

Students Using Drugs

The suit, filed by the New York-based ACLU on behalf of Selken and other students, asks the court to suspend enforcement of the law. The law affects ``thousands'' of students, the ACLU said, without being more specific.

The author of the law, Representative Mark Souder, a Republican of Indiana, said U.S. taxpayers shouldn't subsidize students ``who are frittering away their educations by dealing or using drugs.''

``If students want to pay for their educations themselves and use drugs while doing so, that's one thing,'' Souder said in a written response to a request for comment. ``If they expect to receive taxpayer funds while using drugs, that's something else.''

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson said the law is part of a misguided policy that emphasizes punishment over treatment. The approach produces more violence and drives addicts to lower- cost, dangerous narcotics like methamphetamines, he said.

What Is Dangerous?

``There needs to be an understanding of what is dangerous regarding these drugs, and what is dangerous nine out of 10 times has to do with prohibition,'' Johnson said in an interview. A Republican, he is on the board of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a Washington-based advocacy group and one of the plaintiffs in the ACLU lawsuit.

Selken, who has a grade-point average better than 3.0, pleaded guilty in October 2005 to a misdemeanor possession charge after police found a ``small amount'' of marijuana in a house he shared with two other students, the ACLU said in its complaint.

He was sentenced to 60 days in jail, with 57 days suspended on condition of treatment, and fined $250 plus $147 in lab costs, Selken said. He was required to attend a drug-treatment course.

The law allows students to resume receiving financial aid if they attend a treatment program that includes two random drug tests. Selken said his court-ordered punishment didn't require the random tests, and he now must pay $2,600 to re-take the course with the random tests, to keep his student loan.

Tuition

Tuition at Northern State University costs about $1,500 a semester, most of which Selken covered with federal aid, supplemented by his job as a restaurant waiter. Losing that aid will delay his plans to become a teacher or a lawyer, he said.

The treatment exemption is of little value to many students, said Wolf, the ACLU's lead attorney in the case.

``Many of them can't even get into such a program because the waiting lists are so long,'' Wolf said.

The law was applied by the Department of Education to cover students with prior convictions. Under that policy, the law affected 35,000 students, Wolf said. Congress last month revised the law, saying it applies only to convictions occurring while the student is in school.

The case is Students For Sensible Drug Policy Foundation v. Spellings, CIV. 06-3007, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of South Dakota.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU Defends Blogger’s Right to Parody “Ex-Gay” Group (3/22/2006)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

SAN FRANCISCO – Citing First Amendment protection for parodies, the American Civil Liberties Union today came to the defense of a California man who received a cease-and-desist letter after posting a parody of a billboard advertisement for so-called “reparative therapy” on his website.

“The moment I saw the billboards last September, I was deeply offended. The inspiration for the parody I created came to me instantly. How would straight people feel if their very being, their sense of self was being so overtly disparaged?” said Justin Watt, a blogger from Santa Rosa, California. “Their response was to try to intimidate me into taking the image down. It’s troubling that an organization as big as Exodus would go to such great lengths to silence its critics.”

The billboard, sponsored by “ex-gay” ministry Exodus International, read, “Gay? Unhappy? www.exodus.to.”  After seeing a photo of the billboards online, Watt posted an altered version reading, “Straight? Unhappy? www.gay.com” on his website, Justinsomnia.org.  Liberty Counsel, an anti-gay legal group representing Exodus, sent Watt a cease-and-desist letter earlier this month claiming the parody violated Exodus’s intellectual property rights and threatening legal action if the parodies were not removed.  In a response sent today to Liberty Counsel, the ACLU’s cooperating attorney, Laurence Pulgram of Fenwick & West, LLP, called upon Exodus to drop its attempts to censor Watt, pointing to case law holding parodies to be Constitutionally protected speech.

“Parodies like Justin’s are protected by the First Amendment as a form of political commentary.  His point was to make a comment on a very important issue he has strongly held beliefs about: that Exodus’s tactics are wrong, that there’s nothing wrong with being gay, and that being gay doesn’t make you unhappy,” said Ann Brick, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. “Just as a group like Exodus has a Constitutionally protected right to say whatever it wants to about gay people, even when that view has been roundly condemned by every major psychological and medical organization, Justin has a right to use parody to voice his opposition.”

The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association and other mainstream mental health and medical groups have denounced reparative therapy, stating that there is no evidence that reparative therapy is successful and that the practice may in fact be harmful to those who undergo it.

“Justin’s use of Exodus’s own image to criticize its message is exactly the sort of speech the Constitution protects,” said Pulgram, who heads the copyright litigation group at Fenwick & West.  “The law protects people like Justin from groups like Exodus that try to use copyright as a method of bullying their critics into abandoning their First Amendment right to express their opinions through parody.”

Watt is represented by Brick, Pulgram, and Tamara Lange of the ACLU’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Project.

Additional information about the case, including an image of Watt’s billboard parody, the ACLU letter responding to Liberty Counsel’s cease and desist letter, and statements from mainstream mental health and medical organizations about reparative therapy, is available at  www.aclu.org/caseprofiles

[Soldier4Christ]

Ex-gay group targets blogger with cease and desist; ACLU intervenes

RAW STORY
Published: Wednesday March 22, 2006

Print This | Email This

A man who posted a parody of an ad promoting "ex-gay" program Exodus International has been served with a cease-and-desist, RAW STORY has learned. The ACLU plans to intervene on the man's behalf.

Justin Watt, a blogger from Santa Rosa, CA, says he was "deeply offended" by an Exodus billboard that read, "Gay? Unhappy? www.exodus.to." The ministry believes that it can cure people of homosexuality, thus giving them a happier life. Watt digitally altered an image of the billboard on his website (Justinsomnia.org) to read, "Straight? Unhappy? www.gay.com."

Attorneys representing Exodus sent Watt a cease-and-desist letter earlier this month, claiming he had violated their intellectual property rights. The group threatened legal action if the parodies were not removed. At that point, the American Civil Liberties Union was called to intervene.

Ann Brick, an attorney with the ACLU, says that Watt's parody is protected First Amendment speech. "His point was to make a comment on a very important issue he has strongly held beliefs about: that Exodus's tactics are wrong, that there's nothing wrong with being gay, and that being gay doesn't make you unhappy."

No mainstream medical or psychiatric group believes that homosexuality is a psychological disorder.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU irked by Fresno police proposal to double cameras

By Denny Boyles / The Fresno Bee

(Updated Wednesday, March 22, 2006, 6:38 AM)

The Fresno police and the American Civil Liberties Union agree on only one thing about a proposal to increase the number of surveillance cameras in town.

Cameras, both sides say, are not silver bullets that eliminate crime.

From there, the debate goes downhill in a hurry.

Fresno police Capt. Al Maroney calls the proposed cameras a valuable policing tool, and says they will improve safety for both the public and law enforcement.

Mark Schlosberg, a staff attorney for the ACLU in San Francisco, said the cameras won't stop crime, and instead would represent a "wrong-headed" approach that would further erode privacy rights.

Tuesday, Maroney outlined a proposal that would more than double the number of surveillance cameras in place at intersections, public buildings and in commercial businesses.

Maroney estimates there are 121 cameras in place on public property citywide. More than 20 monitor traffic operations, 33 are in place at waste-water facilities, and dozens of others are mounted on the corners of buildings such as the courthouse, the jail and the Santa Fe Depot.

Maroney said those cameras could be linked to cameras at private businesses and images could be sent through the Internet to dispatchers, giving police a quick view inside and outside businesses during and after crimes.

To explain the idea, Maroney offered this scenario:

A liquor store owner triggers a silent alarm, alerting police that a robbery is taking place. When the call comes in, a dispatcher sees a special icon on his or her computer screen that a camera is in place at the business.

With one click of a mouse button, the police are watching the robbery live. Another click, and cameras mounted on poles at nearby intersections pan around so police can see outside the building as well.

 As the images are recorded for prosecutors to use later, dispatchers give responding officers a description of the suspects, and warn them whether weapons are visible or suspects are trying to hide.

Police call the idea e-VIEW, or electronic Video Incident Enforcement Watch.

"Down the road, we could have several hundred cameras around town," Maroney said. "Some would be owned by the city, others would be privately owned but linked to our system. They wouldn't be monitored all the time, but they would be there when we needed them."

To Schlosberg, the idea is one step closer to what he called the surveillance society.

"These type of Big Brother surveillance programs, where you put cameras over large areas of the city, are ineffective in reducing crime and jeopardize our precious privacy rights. And once those privacy rights are lost, they will not be regained," Schlosberg said.

Schlosberg said he has read numerous studies that show video surveillance does not permanently reduce crime, even when used in massive numbers.

"London is the most covered city in the world in terms of police cameras, and it hasn't reduced crime there. All cameras do is drive the crime to a different area," Schlosberg said.

Fresno doesn't have to look as far as London to see an example of video cameras assisting police. The Clovis Police Department has had a smaller-scale system operating for several years.

Capt. Bob Keyes said the Clovis system has grown steadily since the first cameras were installed at Clovis and Herndon avenues. But, he said, Clovis does not use the system to replace officers.

"Our system has been grant-funded all along, and it has grown as new partners have contacted us," Keyes said.

Clovis has more than 100 cameras on its system, with the majority set to monitor city property, including police headquarters, common areas of the city jail, and other infrastructure.

Cameras are also located at numerous intersections, on water towers downtown and at Letterman Park, and along the city trails.

Keyes said those cameras are accessible at every desktop computer in the police department, as well as on laptops in patrol cars, and in a more limited way at other city agencies. Public Works, for example, has access to fixed cameras on waste water treatment facilities.

"Our system is event-driven. No one is assigned to watch any of the cameras, and there shouldn't be an expectation on the public's part that someone is watching a camera at any given time," Keyes said.

Keyes has video clips that show how the system helps police officers both during and after crimes.

One video clip from Letterman Park showed a group of teenagers breaking into a storage facility. Dispatchers were called about the break-in and zoomed in a camera before a patrol car arrived. The second clip showed a break-in at the 500 Club in downtown Clovis.

Keyes said one of the most significant parts of the Clovis system is what the cameras won't show.

In downtown, for example, two cameras can "see" the Clovis Cole Hotel. In both cases the camera are set so the windows of the hotel are pixelated. When the camera operator tries to zoom in, a large gray block covers the windows.

"We've done that same thing when a camera can see a residence, in order to protect privacy," Keyes said. "We don't want the cameras able to see anything we shouldn't see."

Brad Stevens, a member of the Tenaya Park neighborhood association, said he and his neighbors want something to drive crime away from them. The group is considering having Fresno police install a camera at their park.

Stevens said he and his neighbors invested $90,000 in the park last year, only to see vandals come in and damage equipment and tag walls with graffiti.

"We at least want the police to come out and explain their proposal to us," Stevens said. "It seems like an opportunity to improve the safety of our park, and also form a nice partnership with the police. But we want to know more before making a choice."

Maroney said there is no rush to get the system up and running.

"We want to take our time," Maroney said. "We don't want to do a good idea in a poor way. We want to get things started as soon as it is practical, but the chief wants it done correctly instead of quickly."

[Soldier4Christ]

Court rules Mpls ‘photo cop’ ordinance illegal
By: Jeremy O’Kasick
Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder
Originally posted 3/22/2006

Ruling scene as victory against encroachment on rights

News Analysis

“We are very pleased with the decision,” said Teresa Nelson, legal counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota (ACLU-MN), about the ruling last week by Hennepin County District Court Judge Mark Wernick declaring illegal a Minneapolis ordinance supporting the city’s “photo cop” program.

The suit, bought by the ACLU-MN on behalf of Daniel Kuhlman, challenged the controversial ordinance, which provided the legal basis for establishing a system of traffic-law enforcement that permitted the use of cameras placed on light posts at intersections to catch alleged traffic violations. According to Kuhlman and the ACLU-MN, the ordinance abrogated the presumption of innocence and violated due process.

“This ordinance presumes that the owner of a vehicle that is photographed is guilty and then puts the burden on the owner to prove that he or she was not the driver,” said ACLU-MN Executive Director Chuck Samuelson. “It turns the notion of due process on its head.”

In a statement released last week, the City said that it was disappointed in the decision and was considering whether to appeal the ruling. The cameras were turned off on March 15 pending the city’s decision on challenging the court opinion.

Over 26,000 people have been issued citations under the photo cop ordinance, which carried a $142 fine.


Program has ‘Big Brother feel to it’

While the ACLU-MN’s challenge to the law rested on a legal assertion of the priority of Fourth Amendment rights, many in the community who oppose the program do so on the basis that the law and the program erected around the law are part of a broader campaign by the government to restrict democratic rights and the rights of working people.

In particular, many have objected to the idea advanced by City officials and police that setting up video surveillance on street corners as a way to catch red-light runners is in the interest of working and oppressed people.

“They take advantage of everything that happens to generate fear and concern and pass legislation to take away our rights,” said community activist Brock Satter, who also has been a vocal opponent of police brutality.

“It does have kind of a Big Brother feel to it, which may be the reason why a law permitting this kind of ordinance has not passed at the legislature,” said Nelson, referring to the fact pointed out in Judge Wernick’s ruling that a state law decriminalizing red-light violations would have to be enacted in order for the photo cop ordinance to be lawful.

The photo cop program is like many such programs set up around the country and in other nations. These measures range from special ID cards for immigrants; to workplace surveillance programs; to security controls at airports, to courthouses, and office buildings; to curtailment of the right of habeas corpus; and even to fifth and fourth amendment rights of the accused.

Government officials promote these measures as minor intrusions into the public’s privacy required of everyone to insure a better quality of life, or to protect the public from crime or terrorism.

Peter Erlinder, professor of constitutional law at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, disagrees with these justifications. He explained that these measures have nothing to do with protecting the quality of life, or fighting crime or terrorism, but are rather rationalizations aimed at gaining popular support for restricting working people’s rights, especially the right to organize against injustice.

“I’m sure most people don’t understand this,” said Erlinder in an interview with the Spokesman-Recorder. “Most people who go for these types of laws believe that they will use them against somebody else. That’s an illusion. There is no wall that separates the use of these laws against someone else and from their use against you and me,” he explained.

Erlinder pointed to the example of Jose Padilla, the U.S. citizen who was held under provisions of the Patriot Act by the government for several years without charges and without access to an attorney as an enemy combatant. The law itself, as well as the specific provisions under which Padilla was held, was initially justified as a way to apprehend “foreign terrorists.”

“Yet,” explained Erlinder “the first person arrested under the provision was a U.S. citizen.”

In the United Kingdom, where video surveillance operations like the photo cop program have been in effect for a longer period of time, there are over four million cameras in operation over the space of the entire country, according to a January 16 article in the London Times. This “gives the UK a quarter of the world’s cameras to photograph one per cent of the world’s population,” said the article.

In an article in The Financial Times, reporter Sarah Duguid described how one camera operator spied on three young men. “He zooms in on three young men wearing baseball caps,” wrote Duguid. “He gets so close to them that I can read the brand of their mobile phone. ‘Theoretically,’ explained the operator, ‘I could read a text message from here.’”

According to the London daily newspaper Telegraph, officials of the Camden Council in North London put small cameras in flowerpots, light fixtures, and fake electricity boxes to keep track of residents. Municipal officials have cited fighting crime and “anti-social behavior” as justifications for the measures. However, camera operators at one control center in Liverpool were reportedly caught watching a woman undress in her home.


Some fines to be refunded

About 7,000 people who have received tickets will be sent letters by the court. Those letters will explain that they should hold off on paying the fine or taking other action pending a decision by the city on whether to appeal, according to Hennepin County District Court Chief Judge Lucy Wieland, as reported in the Star Tribune.

According to the St. Paul Pioneer Press, Judge Wieland said that the court would consider requests for rebates from drivers who paid the fines under the program.

[Soldier4Christ]

Nevada parole chief disputes critical report
March 22, 2006, 08:07 AM

The head of Nevada's Parole Board says a prison system report that criticized her panel's efforts -- a report written by a previous director and rejected by the new state prisons chief -- is -- "filled with lies."

Parole Board Chairwoman Dorla Salling sought to dismiss the internal report developed during the tenure of former state prisons director Jackie Crawford. But it was defended by several speakers from Redress Incorporated, a group critical of what it describes as a badly flawed criminal justice system.

The Nevada chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union also expressed concern about the system, noting that the state's parole rate is far below the national average.

The ACLU also said the internal report, while controversial, contains a lot of useful data.

A legislative study panel heard the testimony and will weigh it in coming up with recommended changes on prison sentence, parole and pardons.

Those suggestions will go to the 2007 Legislature.

[Soldier4Christ]

Attorney announces run for Alabama Supreme Court

OPELIKA - A conservative Alabama attorney announced Tuesday he will run for a spot on the Alabama Supreme Court.

Ben Hand, who represents Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker in a lawsuit filed against him by the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement that Alabama residents deserve conservative justices on the bench. Currently, all of the justices are Republican.

He also said it was unacceptable for three justices to side with the ACLU to remove the Ten Commandments Monument from the Judicial Building a few years ago.

Hand, a prosecutor for the city of Opelika and a municipal judge for the city of Wedowee, said it’s “a terrible shame that the ACLU attack a judge (Parker) who defends women and children against vicious thugs.”

Parker was critical of fellow justices for following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that makes it unconstitutional to execute a minor.

[Soldier4Christ]

Lawsuit Targets 'Onerous' Student Speech Codes at Georgia Tech

By Jim Brown
March 22, 2006

(AgapePress) - A federal civil rights lawsuit accuses the Georgia Institute of Technology of censoring the speech of religious and conservative students by enforcing "draconian" speech codes. The suit claims students at the school "are less free to speak and express themselves at the Institute than they are in downtown Atlanta."

The Alliance Defense Fund has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a speech code at Georgia Tech that prohibits "acts of intolerance." ADF senior legal counsel David French says on one hand, Georgia Tech bans students from saying anything that would be subjectively deemed "intolerant" -- and on the other hand withholds lawful funding to religious student groups.

In the meantime, French alleges, the school is engaging in explicit religious instruction on the issue of homosexual behavior through a training program called "Safe Space."

"Georgia Tech has put together a training program that teaches students, administrators, and employees of Georgia Tech ... that those who believe that homosexual behavior is unbiblical can and should be compared to those who used the Bible to justify slavery," the attorney explains.

The online training manual found at Safe Space states: "Many religious traditions have taught, and some continue to teach, that homosexuality is immoral. These condemnations are based primarily on a few isolated passages from the Bible. Historically, biblical passages taken out of context have been used to justify such things as slavery, the inferior status of women, and the persecution of religious minorities."

French says he finds it curious the American Civil Liberties Union has not weighed in on the matter, given the group's penchant for voicing concern over the so-called separation of church and state. Georgia Tech, he believes, is "clearly overstepping" its bounds in interpreting religious texts and then "pushing it own view upon a religiously diverse community on campus."

French, who heads up the ADF's Center for Academic Freedom, says the school also withholds lawful funding to religious student groups.

"Our clients ... have been trying to change the climate at Georgia Tech literally for years," says the ADF spokesman. "And for their trouble they've had their speech censored, they've had their protests shut down by campus police -- and most recently they had university officials warn them away from speaking any further along the lines that they were wanting to speak."

The two plaintiffs -- Orit Sklar and Ruth Malhotra -- are members of the group College Republicans at Georgia Tech. They claim their ability to dialogue on "matters of political, cultural, and religious importance" is restricted by the school's speech code and intolerance of dissenting students.

ADF filed Sklar v. Clough [PDF] in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Among other things, the lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction against enforcement of the speech code, a declaration that the speech code is unconstitutional, as well as damages and attorneys' fees.