First Amendment Minutes - Auld Lang Syne

The latest ACLU First Amendment Minutes are up and ready for your listening pleasure. This week, a talk about sex and the federal budget, and the tackling of an age-old question: just what is an Auld Lang Syne?

As always, you can listen to them here or on our podcast page: http://aclum.org/podcasts/


ACLU First Amendment Minute: A Talk About Sex


We need to have a talk about sex. We're also going to talk about the federal budget, but we'll get to the sex part soon, I promise.



ACLU First Amendment Minute: Auld Lang Syne


What's an Auld Lang Syne anyway?

Airport Security

Much has been said over the very recent near-miss aboard a US-bound flight wherein a young man attempted to ignite a homemade bomb aboard the aircraft. Security measures doubled at airports around the nation, and many cities – Boston included – are slated to receive “millimeter wave machines” – scanners that can provide full body imaging, essentially creating a naked picture of a person.

Surely, we are deeply interested in security and safety, and believe strongly in putting the proper systems in place to avert threats. However, we have serious privacy concerns about these so-called “naked machines”. Will security use them primarily to find drugs or other contraband? Will people be discriminated against based on color or appearance? And we wonder – are these machines truly effective?

We generally support the use of the “puffer” machines that pick up dangerous chemicals as an effective alternative – so long as they are tuned for explosives (not drugs) and that folks who may test for false positives are treated fairly (some medications and fertilizers can set off the machines).

The ACLU’s principles of Airline Security are just as valid now as they were in this 2006 testimony:

Principles of Airline Security

· New physical security technologies must be genuinely effective, rather than creating a false sense of security.

· The level of intrusion – the degree to which a proposed measure invades privacy – should reflect the level of risk, and, if both are effective, the least intrusive physical screening technology or technique should always trump the more invasive technology.

· Given limited Homeland Security funding, Congress must insist that those technologies that reduce the gravest threats be implemented first.

· The physical security technologies employed must be focus on accomplishing the critical objective that authorizes their application – increasing passenger aviation security. Neither TSA’s screening employees nor the machines they operate should be diverted to search for illegal contraband that does not pose a threat to aviation security.

· Minimally intrusive physical screening technologies should be implemented in lieu of ineffective passenger pre-screening proposals, such as Secure Flight and Registered Traveler.

· Security measures should be implemented in a non-discriminatory manner. Travelers should not be subjected to intrusive searches or questioning based on race, ethnic origin, country of origin, or religion. Rather, heightened security measures should be employed where neutral criteria show that a person poses a physical threat to aviation.

The Holidays, ACLU-style

There’s a fantastic post on the National ACLU’s Blog Of Rights titled “A (Facebook) Christmas Story” that I think every ACLU-affiliated person should have a look at. It’s short, simple, and to the point, basically stating that the work we do here regarding freedom of religion and belief is important – and in no way infringes upon anyone’s ability to celebrate Christmas.

From the piece:

“As an employee of the ACLU, you come to realize quickly that Christmas is a time for correcting misguided assumptions on the work of our organization. Before my time here, family and friends sent the chain email that pleads with people to send ACLU Christmas cards and to make sure to write "Merry Christmas!" Further, I've overheard the conversations that ACLU is creating a "war on Christmas." Since beginning my work here, most family and friends have respected me and my job enough to learn more about ACLU and correct made-up notions of what we do here.”

It’s true that many, many folks seem to think we have a “war on Christmas” or something against the Christian holidays. This really couldn’t be further from the truth. We believe strongly in – and routinely fight for – the freedom of any person to believe in (and celebrate!) whatever they choose. We fought for religious freedom in the case of Josue Brissot, a Rastafarian TSA worker who was discriminated against, to cite one very recent example.

Whether you prefer to decorate a Christmas tree, light a kinara or menorah, or simply bask in the glow of the holiday season, know that we will always support and fight for your right to do so.

Warm wishes for a wonderful season, whatever you celebrate!

First Amendment Minutes for 12.22.09

We have four new First Amendment Minutes ready this week, on subjects branching from gender identity legislation in New York, privacy on facebook, and an athiest official encountering grief on his way to get sworn into office in North Carolina.

Listen to them here, or check out our podcast page: http://aclum.org/podcasts/

ACLU First Amendment Minute: Have You Ever
Are you now or have you ever used drugs, received counseling, engaged in homosexual behavior, illegal gambling or loitering? Careful before you answer, your job may be on the line.

ACLU First Amendment Minute: Your Attention Please
YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE, YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE: If you Twitter, have friends on Facebook, or chat electronically, law enforcement is probably monitoring you.

ACLU First Amendment Minute: Gender ID in New York
In order to understand the importance of New York Governor, David Patterson's recent executive order that requires state agencies to include gender identity in their non-discrimination policies, you might want to know a couple of numbers.

ACLU First Amendment Minute: A Funny Thing Happened...
A funny thing happened to Cecil Bothwell on his way to being sworn into office as Asheville, North Carolina's newly-elected city councilor.

Traveling without privacy

Did you know that it is completely legal for transportation officials to compromise your privacy by searching your laptop files or digital camera?

Reading the Blog of Rights this morning, I was struck by just how completely international travelers are forced to give up their basic right to privacy – even if there is absolutely no reason (such as suspicious behavior) for the searches.

From the post:

“the Obama administration, in an August announcement that attracted little public attention, stated that it would continue President Bush’s policy of searching and copying the information on international travelers’ laptops, cameras and cell phones without any suspicion of wrongdoing. If you want to know how much that matters, just think about the personal information you have on those devices. The administration is expected to issue a civil liberties assessment of the policy any day now, but it’s hard to imagine any justification for groundless searches of Americans’ sensitive personal data.”

Just imagine how much private data you have on any given device – personal photos, bank records, purchasing information, etc. It’s utterly disturbing that this policy is still in place – check out this ACLU action alert Tell Congress: Rein in Government Travel Abuses to take action on the issue.

Holiday Cheer and First Amendment Minutes 12.15.09

This week, we have a collection of fresh First Amendment Minute episodes for you, on topics ranging from the holidays to the dismissal of Guantanamo’s Chief Military Prosecutor over an op-ed.

Also, be sure to check out our new Holiday Page for seasonal updates, stories and blog posts.

ACLU First Amendment Minute: Housing Authority
 What does a housing authority rule that says don't affix anything to the outside of the door of your apartment have to do with the first amendment?


ACLU First Amendment Minute: ACLU Carolers
 And now let's hear from the ACLU carolers.


ACLU First Amendment Minute: Chief Military Prosecuter at Gitmo 
The former Chief Military Prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay has been fired from his present job as a researcher at The Library of Congress for, get this, writing an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal and a letter to The Washington Post.

ACLU v. Sebelius

The following was written by ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Intern Elizabeth Volney.

On Thursday, December 3, 2009, Brigette Amiri, Senior Staff Attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project, argued to Judge Richard G. Stearns (D. Mass.) that the doctrine of taxpayer standing remains a necessary tool for lawyers to challenge government spending of taxpayer money in ways that may violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause prohibits Congress from promoting or financially supporting a religious idea which does not possess a secular purpose.

The ACLU of Massachusetts filed the lawsuit, ACLU of Massachusetts v. Sebelius (formerly ACLU of Massachusetts v. Leavitt), against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) on January 12, 2009, claiming that HHS violated the Establishment Clause by permitting the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (“USCCB”) to impose faith-based restrictions on subgrantees of Congressional funds provided under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”). Congress passed the TVPA in 2000 to help victims of human trafficking achieve self-sufficiency by providing them with expanded benefits and services, including medical services.

Until it ceded the power to distribute the congressionally provided funds to USCCB, HHS awarded grants to non-governmental organizations (“NGO’s”) who provided assistance to victims of human trafficking. Some NGO’s provided victims with referrals for abortion and contraception, and payment for contraceptives. Such referrals provided a necessary service for many victims who suffer from sexual and reproductive health problems, such as HIV, as a result of being trafficked. After HHS assigned USCCB the right to distribute the TVPA funds through subgrants, USCCB expressly prohibited subgrantee NGO’s from using the taxpayer-provided funds to provide referrals for abortion services or contraceptive materials, essentially requiring NGO’s who do not ideologically agree with USCCB to use the funds in line with Catholic doctrine.

HHS moved to dismiss the ACLU’s complaint, claiming that the doctrine of taxpayer standing did not give ACLU the right to sue HHS. Generally, taxpayers do not have the right to challenge the manner in which the government spends their tax dollars. Rather than allowing a taxpayer to broadly contest the government spending, the law usually presumes that a person exists whom the spending directly injured, more so than the average taxpayer. In very limited circumstances, however, a taxpayer does have standing to bring a suit against general government spending; one of those circumstances being violations of the Establishment Clause.

If HHS’s attempt to dismiss the case without reaching its merits is successful, the result will make it almost impossible for taxpayers to challenge government funding that is used to further religious doctrines. In many instances where the taxpayer standing doctrine is utilized it is because a direct victim of the government spending refuses to file a lawsuit against the government. In the present case, victims of human trafficking are often too scared to publicly file a lawsuit against HHS, and the NGO’s receiving the funds fear their grants will not be renewed if they take action against the department. This predicament leaves no directly injured plaintiff to effectively challenge USCCB’s restrictions on sexual and reproductive health, and, as Attorney Amiri argued, highlights the continued necessity of this doctrine.

Judge Stearns took Attorney Amiri’s and the HHS’s attorney’s arguments under advisement, and the ACLU awaits Judge Stearns’ opinion regarding this issue.

This week at ACLU of Massachusetts

We certainly had a busy week here at the ACLU of Massachusetts. So busy, in fact, that we weren't able to blog yesterday.

We'll leave you with a few important updates and links. Have a wonderful weekend, and as always, stay safe and free!

Check out our newest page for the holiday season

Important Tweets and links:

Facebook's Privacy Transition: Push Facebook in the Right Direction http://bit.ly/6iYAiw

Supporting the ACLU (wonderful piece on Salon.com by Glenn Greenwald) http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/10/aclu

Coakley won the democratic primary for state senate - see her stance on civil liberties issues here: http://bit.ly/8NhZ0m

Going Public on Facebook

As of today, social networking giant Facebook has unveiled an entirely new privacy policy. This time around, folks who leave their profiles “Public” are sharing information with the entire online world – not just with other users of Facebook.

From a MediaMemo post:

“Facebook says these settings won’t be the default for anyone under age 18, and that kids will be prevented from sharing much of their information outside of Facebook. The company also says that users who have tweaked their privacy settings in the past will find those settings as the default when they first visit their privacy page. The majority of users, though, will end up with the “Everyone” default.”

There is an incredible number of reasons why folks need to protect their privacy online – not the least of which is the fact that it is your right to decide what information you’d like to share with others.

If you’re on facebook and have any sort of sensitive or private information on your profile – be sure to check your privacy settings today.

A Win for Reproductive Freedom

We're very happy to report that the US Senate has just voted to table the Nelson-Hatch Amendment (an amendment to the proposed health care reform bill that would severely restrict reproductive freedom).

From Anthony Romero, ACLU Executive Director:

"Today, the Senate voted down a truly cynical and backward amendment. The Nelson-Hatch amendment, like the Stupak-Pitts amendment, was a direct attack on a woman’s right to make private health care decisions. The Senate clearly understands that abortion is a part of basic health care for women and that true health care reform will not live up to its name if it fails to protect a woman’s right to access comprehensive care. Health care reform should improve women’s health and lives, not interfere with their right to get the health care they need. We urge the conference committee to follow the Senate’s lead and keep this abortion coverage ban out of the final health care bill.”

Stay tuned to the Mass Rights Blog for more news and commentary on the issue. We're thrilled to be able to bring news of a victory!

Proposition 8 and Jim Crow: Same Intentions, Same Shame

On December 3^rd, the New York Senate rejected a bill that would have given same-sex couples the ability to marry, effectively isolating Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Iowa as the only states who have granted the right for gays to marry through legislation or the courts.

On October 6th, Louisiana Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell denied an interracial couple a marriage license, effectively taking us back to the 1800’s where Jim Crow laws ruled supreme allowing most U.S. states to prohibit interracial marriage.

How are these two separate events related? It seems that even as we press ahead as a Nation in achieving momentous social, civil, and political rights for all both here and abroad, refusing to give someone the privilege of loving the person of their choosing under the law because of one’s own personal beliefs (or prejudices) continues to cross color, gender, and sexual preference lines in the U.S. judicial system. As the New York Senate’s decision proves, (now former) Justice of the Peace Bardwell isn’t the most recent person in a position of judicial authority to use the power of his office to deny someone their right to love under the law. But the right to marry should not be an issue of personal belief revolving around sanctity, moral judgments, or religious ideology, but rather should be looked at as the civil rights issue it truly is.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

As citizens of the United States, we are all equal under the law so says our own Declaration of Independence, but apparently all of us do not have the right to chose to love differently than the majority of America today and still be recognized under the law. Just as in the U.S. of the 1950’s, when equality under the law was but a dream for most African Americans until the Civil Rights Movement helped compel America to end legally sanctioned discrimination, in the realm of gay marriage, we are now seeing the majority of Americans again voting on the rights of the minority here in America.

So just as the world and many my friends in Louisiana were ashamed that in the United States, after race riots and civil rights legislation, after affirmative action debates and seeing our first black leaders in business, government, and industry, we are still being confronted with someone abusing their position of power in defense of “protecting” people who are old enough (in their eyes and also in the eyes of the law) to make their own decisions, should we not be ashamed to frame the debate over marriage as anything other than a civil rights issue which lies at the heart of our principals of freedom and equality essential to us as Americans?

I wonder if all of the people who voted no on Proposition 8 or if all the representatives who voted down gay marriage in Legislatures across the U.S. are equally as disgusted at reading about a judge in Louisiana declaring that an interracial couple does not have the right to marry as they are at themselves for declaring that a gay couple does not have the right to marry? I wonder if 60 years from now we will look back as a Nation on these anti-same sex marriage court decisions and voting actions and be as ashamed as we are now about the long history of racial hatred and discrimination in the United States of America?

I believe we will. I am now.

Written by Melissa Mongogna

December 4^th, 2009

First Amendment Minutes for 12.4.09

As we near another weekend, we’ve prepared a fresh batch of First Amendment Minutes for your enjoyment. Check them out below or on our podcast page.

ACLU First Amendment Minute: The Pledge of Allegiance
From time to time, school administrators try to impose patriotism on students by requiring them to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.



ACLU First Amendment Minute: Your Apartment Door
What does a housing authority rule that says don't affix anything to the outside of the door of your apartment have to do with the first amendment?



ACLU First Amendment Minute: Warning: Listener Discretion Advised
Warning: Listener discretion is advised. This commentary contains a description of graphic images.

ACLU of Mass v. Sebelius

We’ve just concluded an exciting day in court, where the ACLU of Massachusetts (led by National ACLU attorney Brigitte Amiri) argued before a judge in the ACLU v. Sebelius case, which centers on the core issue of freedom to access reproductive health care and the separation of church and state.

Here’s a brief excerpt from our recent news release on the case:

“The ACLU filed the case earlier this year against HHS for permitting the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to use taxpayer money to impose religiously based restrictions on reproductive health services in the U.S. government's trafficking victims program.

Since April 2006, HHS has awarded USCCB from $2.5 million to $3.5 million annually to make grants to organizations that provide direct services to trafficking victims under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Act. HHS did this knowing that USCCB prohibits, based on its religious beliefs, grantees from using any of the federal funds to provide or refer for contraceptive or abortion services, even though the Trafficking Victims Protection Act contains no such restrictions.”

Both sides argued before Judge Richard G. Stearns this afternoon. Amiri (who is a Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project) gave a stirring argument that taxpayer money should not go to an organization that is denying important care to victims – for explicitly religious reasons.

See our Legal brief here, and stay tuned for more news on the case!

Gay Marriage Updates, part two

Despite some wonderfully impassioned arguments from several NY state Senators, the gay marriage bill did not pass. The final count showed 38 against, 24 for.

It's difficult not to be upset with the results, but rest assured that the ACLU will continue to advocate - and fight - for Marriage equality.

We'll leave you with this quote from a man who knew a thing or two about civil liberties and justice in the United States: Martin Luther King jr.

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice"

Gay Marriage Updates

It’s been a surprisingly positive week for advocates of Gay Marriage in the United States. After suffering a defeat in Maine (the ACLU of Massachusetts was particularly saddened by this, given that we spent election day campaigning in the state), both the District of Columbia and the state of New York have offered promising stories.

Today, the New York Senate will vote during a special session.

Daily Kos has the scoop on the rather complicated process:

“Sometime today, the NY Senate will vote during its special session to legalize gay marriage. The Albany Project has a look at where the votes might come from, since the measure is opposed by at least two Democrats, and possibly five, it will require several Republicans to pass. Supporters are confident that the votes are there.

Since this is a special session, the previous Assembly vote was inoperative and the measure needed to pass the chamber again. Mission accomplished last night, as the Assembly revote on it after a 1 minute debate. Two years ago, the debate lasted three hours.

This morning, the Senate passed the gay marriage bill out of its rules committee. There should be four hours debate on the measure later today. Once it passes, Gov. Patterson will sign it as quick as he can. He has been the main driver of making this happen this year. Assuming all goes well, he'll deserve a big part of the credit.”

In Washington DC, a proposed gay marriage bill passed its first reading (by an 11-2 vote). From Pink News:

“It receives a second and final council vote later this month and will then go to Fenty for approval.

However, it must then be approved by Congress during a 30-day review. Observers have said it is likely the Democrat-controlled Congress will approve it, which could make gay marriage legal by late January”

We’ll be watching these votes closely. Stay tuned on the Mass Rights blog to find out the results!

Will our next U.S. Senator be a civil libertarian?

We'd like to know. That's why the ACLU sent a questionnaire on key civil liberties issues to all the candidates running to fill the U.S. Senate seat held by the late Edward Kennedy. While we sent the item to all of the candidates, we have not heard back from Republicans Scott Brown or Jack E. Robinson.

It will be tough to fill Senator Kennedy's shoes. He made a lifetime of contributions to the cause of civil rights and civil liberties, and in 2006, we gave him the ACLU of Massachusetts' highest honor, the Roger Baldwin Award, named for the Massachusetts-born founder of the ACLU.

We hope that the next U.S. Senator from Massachusetts will provide that kind of leadership. To find out where the contenders stand, we asked questions such as these:

• Would you support a Congressional investigation of possible unlawful activities by government officials in the post 9/11 era to determine who should be held accountable?
• Would you have sponsored the JUSTICE Act that would have fixed problems with the USA PATRIOT Act and FISA Amendments Act that threaten the rights and liberties of all Americans?
• Will you support establishing independent oversight and enhanced privacy standards for fusion centers, including the Massachusetts Commonwealth Fusion Center?
• Will you support reversing the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal Medicaid funding for abortion?
• Check out our special election page for a full listing of the candidates answers, additional statements on the issues, and other information.