Categories
Join Us At:
|
The Government Says You Are Better Off Passing Out Flyers in a Ski Mask Than Tweeting Controversial MaterialBack in December, I posted a blog recounting a truly bizarre experience: sitting in on what I thought would be an open court hearing, and instead witnessing the closing off of the judicial process to the public. We had gone to court to argue our motion to quash a Suffolk county district attorney subpoena to Twitter, seeking information about our client, John Doe, and information related to Occupy Boston. Yesterday there was another hearing, but this time I got to hear everything. The case was at the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, with Justice Francis X. Spina presiding. An Assistant District Attorney for Suffolk County argued for the Commonwealth; ACLU of Massachusetts staff attorney Laura Rótolo argued for the First Amendment and our client, John Doe. (I’m leaving out what exactly the hearing today revolved around, simply because the prior court’s judgment, as well as all of the briefs related to the case, remain sealed. I’m therefore not allowed to talk about it, still. Although since yesterday’s hearing was held in open court, and I’m allowed to tell you everything I heard there, you’ll likely get an accurate sense of where things stand with the case simply by reading the following.) The case: what ground are you standing on? The argument focused on the most basic of questions: does “@p0isAn0n” have the right to challenge the D.A.’s subpoena? Does he even get to go to court and say that the subpoena is unconstitutional? Attorney Rótolo opened by arguing that yes, contrary to the state’s assertion, our client does indeed have standing to challenge the subpoena to Twitter for his records. There are First Amendment issues at stake in this case, Rótolo argued, because if our motion fails and Twitter is forced to comply with the subpoena, the state will learn of our client’s identity, thereby ridding him of the opportunity to speak anonymously. Once our client’s anonymity is lost, it is lost forever. Further, John Doe is the only person who can bring a motion to quash the subpoena before the court. Twitter has no interest in doing so and will not do so; faced with this reality, our client has no other options but to defend himself. When First Amendment issues are at stake, the person whose personally identifiable information is sought via the administrative subpoena process must have a right to challenge it, otherwise we all lose our rights to anonymity online. We are in big trouble if we cannot criticize the government anonymously on the internet. The court should take into account how our society has rapidly become an internet society; it is here, where you are reading this right now, where our voices are heard and where issues of the day are debated. As many erudite scholars and activists have demonstrated at length, anonymity is vital to speech. Without the cloak of anonymity, many of the most important critiques will be silenced because people rightly fear retribution by the government. Online speech is no different. The Assistant District Attorney spoke next. She said some pretty astounding things, including that our client – and therefore, the rest of us – has no right to anonymous speech on Twitter. She said that the administrative subpoena in question is “very similar to a Grand Jury subpoena,” and that the Massachusetts state legislature authorized prosecutors to use it as an investigative tool. She argued that the process can remain opaque and can proceed without interference from the subject because, like the exemption under public records law preventing open access to materials that would reveal investigatory procedures, the administrative subpoena is an authorized investigatory tool and therefore above reproach or legal challenge. Finally, she argued that because the subpoena did not ask for any content information, but only IP and other identifying information, our client has no right to use a First Amendment defense. It’s not what he said, but who he is, that they are after, she suggested. Judge Spina reflected for a moment, and then restated our claim that the First Amendment “chill” here relates to the stripping of our client’s anonymity, which is unrelated to the content of his tweets. The ADA told him that our client gave up his right to anonymity online when he joined Twitter, leading the judge to ask our lawyers about Twitter’s Terms of Service agreement. Does signing up to use Twitter mean that people forfeit their rights to anonymity, if that’s what the policy says? “No,” Rótolo told him. Judge Spina: Does Twitter use then grant people the right to anonymously make threats? Rótolo: “No. And in this case, our client is not responsible for making any threats whatsoever. The issue at stake here was the compiling of publicly available information from the internet, something anyone could have done, which is not illegal and does not constitute a threat.” Furthermore, she argued, when there is a First Amendment issue at stake, as there is with the unmasking of our client in this case, the burden falls on the state to prove that they have compelling interest in his identity. Since he has not committed any crime, we present to the court that they do not have compelling interest that would justify stripping him of his First Amendment right to anonymous speech critical of the government, she said. And that’s when things got really interesting. The government attorney had some pretty shocking things to say about anonymous speech and our client’s rights. Among them: the “voluntary nature of the tweeting” is what “puts his IP address out there.” No one forced him to use Twitter, she argued, and therefore his personally identifiable information is fair game for the government to scoop up. The judge countered, asking her how he might engage in anonymous speech in the 21st century if not online. Shockingly, she said, “he could have gone down to Dewey square and handed out flyers.” But he would not be anonymous if he did that, Judge Spina said. People will see him handing out those flyers. (Ed note: so will the literally tens of surveillance cameras pointed at the square.) “He can wear a ski mask,” the D.A. said, prompting at least one snicker from the public. “When he contracts through Twitter” to speak publicly, “he gives up” his rights to anonymity, she said. So there you have it. All you people who use the internet out there, know this: the government advises that if you want your speech to remain anonymous, you put on a mask and head down to the most politically surveilled region in your city to pass out controversial anti-government material that angers the police. But don’t say anything on Twitter, or the government can find you, and you won’t have the right to step into a courtroom and say, “that’s not right.” Stay tuned for more on this case, coming as soon as we hear from Judge Spina. Let’s hope he realizes what most of us have long known: when we click a box next to Terms of Service agreements in order to be able to engage in the 21st century world of ideas, we aren’t consenting to giving away our Constitutional rights. Let’s hope Judge Spina agrees. Note: this issue is centrally related to the discussion around third party content holders, which Justice Sotomayor brought up in her concurring opinion in the recently decided Jones case on GPS tracking. Let's hope the Supreme Court goes in the right direction with respect to third party content and Constitutional guarantees. Nothing less than free speech on the internet is at stake. Learn more about free speech online: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Twitter
Joseph Gordon-Levitt and The Gregory Brothers Team Up With the ACLU on Photographers' Rights A couple of weeks ago at the Sundance Film Festival, the open-collaborative production company hitRECord released a short animated music video on photographers’ First Amendment rights, in collaboration with the ACLU of Florida. Ironically, while sharing digital information is fast, easy and quickly becoming universal, getting the word out about the right to record and share information is still a challenge. Even though the ACLU has drafted and released written material on the rights of photographers, a written pamphlet about the right to capture and share digital images just wouldn’t do. So we reached out to the directors and artists at htRECord to help spread the word about the right to take pictures in public. Enlisting the help of The Gregory Brothers (best known for Auto-Tune the News), HitRecord reprised their song “You Can’t Turn the Lights Off Now,” from an earlier animated video about Prop 8 to fit the new message. Then, just six days before Sundance, HitRecord director Joseph Gordon-Levitt, asked artists around the world to help put images to the music for the big show. In less than a week, more than 163 artists had contributed to the final video. Gordon-Levitt (aka RegularJOE) directed the final production and introduced it Sundance.
While the video is fun, the message is serious. Taking photos in public of public actions — especially police — is a protected right. But that has not stopped police from seizing cameras, destroying pictures or making arrests. We’ve seen it happen in mass protests such as the “Occupy” movements and in a high profile police involved shooting here in Miami Beach last year. People have a right to monitor their government and share what they learn. That’s why the ACLU will keep fighting for the right to keep government — including the police — open and honest by defending the rights of photographers. Like the song says, “Corruption thrives on secrecy. Transparency is good for you and me.” For more information, check out our resources on photographers’ rights. Learn more about photographers' rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Twitter, WikiLeaks, and Your Right to PrivacyToday we're filing an appeal in the legal battle over the records of several Twitter users being sought by the government in connection with its WikiLeaks investigation. In this latest round, we’re again fighting to make public the government’s efforts to obtain Internet users’ private information without a warrant. The ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation represent Icelandic parliament member Birgitta Jonsdottir. In a November ruling, U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady refused to unseal or publicly list any court orders or legal motions concerning our clients in the case, including any government orders issued to companies other than Twitter. These secret orders and these secret court dockets prevent our clients from having the chance to protect their constitutional rights by challenging the orders, as we did in the Twitter case. This isn’t the only time that government investigators have tried to get the private records of Internet users, and it unfortunately probably won’t be the last. In another case involving a Twitter user, local prosecutors in Boston recently subpoenaed Twitter to learn the identity of a user who posted publicly available information about Boston police officers following the removal of the Occupy Boston protestors. The ACLU of Massachusetts and ACLU national are representing that Twitter user’s legal challenge to the subpoena. Last month, over our objections, the judge held a hearing in secret and sealed all of the records, even though the subpoena itself is a public document. The government shouldn’t be able to get this kind of information without a warrant, and they certainly shouldn’t be able to do so in secret. Internet users don’t automatically give up their rights to privacy and free speech when they use services like Twitter. An open court system is a fundamental part of our democracy, and the very existence of court documents should not be hidden from the public. That’s not how our judicial system works, and we’re hopeful that the courts will start to put an end to this secrecy. Learn more about internet privacy: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Birgitta Jonsdottir, Occupy, Twitter, Wikileaks
Could the Government Outlaw Lying?Could the government outlaw lying? Not just lying that causes injury — lying that defames, for example, or defrauds — but could the government outlaw lying more generally? The Justice Department appears to think so. In a case called United States v. Alvarez, the government is asking the Supreme Court to hold that that the First Amendment doesn’t protect “calculated falsehoods.” Calculated falsehoods, the Justice Department argues, are generally valueless, and Congress should be able to criminalize them if it wants to. There’s some surface appeal to the government’s argument, because there’s no doubt that some calculated falsehoods lack obvious social value. Some of them are offensive, cowardly, distressing and even harmful to others. But it’s worth pausing to consider the implications of the government’s argument. Many false statements serve important social interests — think of satire and parody, for example — and many others are integral to autonomy and self-fulfillment interests that the First Amendment has long been understood to protect. Investing the government with the general power to declare speech to be constitutionally valueless on the grounds of its “falsity” would give the government sweeping power to control and censor public debate. It would also permit unprecedented governmental intrusion into private conversations, including the most intimately personal ones. As federal appeals court Judge Alex Kozinski observed in an opinion well worth reading, perfectly respectable people lie all the time in order to protect their privacy, avoid hurt feelings, make others feel better, avoid recriminations, prevent grief, maintain domestic tranquility, avoid social stigma, avoid loneliness, set up surprise parties, stall for time, keep up appearances, duck minor obligations, maintain their public image, make a point, save face, avoid embarrassment, protect themselves or others from prejudice and bigotry, or simply entertain. Does the First Amendment permit Congress — or state legislatures, for that matter — to criminalize all of this speech? The statute at issue in Alvarez — the Stolen Valor Act — outlaws a seemingly narrow category of lies: It imposes criminal penalties on those who falsely claim that they’ve won military honors. (Alvarez himself implausibly claimed that he’d been awarded the Medal of Honor, which is what got him indicted, but he also claimed that he’d played for the Detroit Red Wings, been married to a Mexican starlet, and rescued the American ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis.) But even this seemingly narrow statute sweeps rather broadly. As we write in a friend-of-the-court brief filed today: The Act reaches oral statements as well as written ones, and private statements as well as public ones. It reaches statements that do not cause harm as well as those that do. It reaches statements made with intent to deceive, but it also reaches satire and parody. . . . It reaches the satirist, the actor, the comic, the investigator, the eccentric, and the common braggart. It reaches them whether their claims are made in a newspaper ad, a public speech, a dinner table conversation, a love letter, a blog post, or a tweet. And it reaches them even if their claim was not intended to deceive, no one relied on it, no one was harmed by it, and no one other than the government paid it any attention. We’ve urged the Court to find the statute unconstitutional. Oral argument will be heard on Feb. 22. You can read our brief here. Learn more about free speech: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
SOPA and PIPA Votes Delayed Indefinitely Following an action-filled week on Capitol Hill, votes on two anti-piracy bills in the House and Senate have been delayed indefinitely until there is wider agreement in Congress about the legislation. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), sponsor of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) just announced that “all consideration” of the bill would be halted “until there is wider agreement on a solution.” An hour earlier, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced a vote on SOPA’s sister bill in the Senate, the Protect IP Act (PIPA), would be postponed as well, stating that “there is no reason that the legitimate issues raised by many about this bill cannot be resolved.” In an attempt to crack down on piracy online, these bills could potentially result in the takedown of large amounts of non-infringing, First-Amendment-protected content from the Internet, without even giving notice to the owners and producers of that lawful content. To show opposition to the overbroad legislation, earlier this week thousands of websites went dark to protest the proposed legislation. We’re pleased to hear that opposing parties in Congress want to take more time to come up with a solution that addresses the concerns voiced all across the country, and seen all across the Internet this week. We believe that Congress can find a solution to end piracy, without harming free speech online. Contact your Member of Congress today to let them know that you want them to protect the open Internet. Learn more about free speech online: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
The Internet Goes Dark Yesterday’s Internet blackout of major websites like Wikipedia, Reddit and even the ACLU’s own Northern California affiliate certainly made waves. These tech advocates united to dim their websites in order to protest and bring attention to the anti-piracy legislation pending in the House and Senate. Though we did not dim our own website, we stood in support of those websites that did and encouraged people to contact their Member of Congress to urge them to fix these flawed pieces of legislation, and in response to our call tens of thousands of you have already taken action. If you haven’t acted yet, tell Congress that the bills need to be fixed so they don’t restrict access to wholly lawful non-infringing content in the course of getting rid of infringing content. While the protest was originally sparked by the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House, it was its sister bill in the Senate, the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), that seemed to garner the most attention. PIPA was introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) in May 2011, but Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has had a hold on the bill since it was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in July. Despite the volume of protest, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has promised to go through with a cloture vote, scheduled for January 24th. After yesterday’s protest, it seems like PIPA is losing its steam. As the protest continued to gain momentum, Senators began pulling their sponsorship of the bill. As of this afternoon, twenty six senators have withdrawn their support, including former cosponsors Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), and John Boozman (R-Ark.). While he has not withdrawn his sponsorship, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has said that he does not support the bill in its current form and he believes improvements can be made. We applaud these senators for stepping forward and encouraging a delay on these bills in order to fine tune the anti-piracy language. Any legislation to reduce online infringement must also protect the First Amendment rights of online content producers and Internet users to post and/or access lawful non-infringing content. We urge those of you concerned about these bills to seize this moment and keep the pressure on your Members of Congress to fix these bills. To hear more about the ACLU’s position on SOPA and PIPA, you can watch this short Agence France-Press clip with the ACLU’s First Amendment Counsel, Michael Macleod-Ball here. Learn more about SOPA and PIPA: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Ben Cardin, Chuck Grassley, John Boozman, Kelly Ayotte, Marco Rubio, Orrin Hatch, Patrick Leahy, Protect IP Act, Ron Wyden, Roy Blunt, Stop Online Piracy Act
We Still Need Diversity and Minority Ownership in our MediaWe rely on the media to help us make informed decisions by presenting not just the details of important issues, but also a variety of perspectives and opinions surrounding them. Unfortunately a new proposal from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would weaken important existing protections that ensure our free access to media of all varieties. When media companies are consolidated and huge monopolies are formed (for example, Rupert Murdoch’s expansive News Corporation), local media is often bought up, the range of voices is changed to one voice, and we lose those vital voices in our communities. Recognizing the importance of a diversity of opinions in media coverage, the FCC established media ownership rules in the 1970s to promote competition and diversity in our media by protecting local markets from being controlled by a small handful of media companies. The FCC proposal, which was published in today’s Federal Register (a daily publication with notifications and proposed rules by the federal government), moves to relax the rules restricting ownership of both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same local market. These rules protect against the kind of consolidation that kills local stations and newspapers that can’t compete against large media conglomerates. Despite the existing protections, the market is still shrinking as media is becoming increasingly consolidated. Currently, six major companies control most of the news in this country, including many of the most popular Internet news sites. In 2011 alone we saw a huge period of media consolidation and record breaking mergers. E.W. Scripps bought nine stations from McGraw-Hill for $212 million last October. And, in the single biggest television station acquisition in four years, Sinclair Broadcast Group bought eight TV stations from Freedom Communications for $385 million. This is the third time the FCC has attempted to weaken these rules protecting diversity (Congress requires the FCC to review media ownership rules every four years). Previous attempts were overruled in the courts. In both cases, the courts were specifically concerned with the lack of representation of women and minorities in the media and the effect a weakening of the rules would have on them. The courts have repeatedly called on the FCC and the media to gather data on women and minority ownership in media and they have repeatedly failed to do so. In fact, in 2011 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals decision, the court said that the agency had “punted yet again on this important issue” and accused the FCC of ignoring evidence that media concentration makes it harder for women and people of color to break into the industry and become broadcast station owners. In our complex and diverse society, local media plays an important and necessary role in covering a range of issues from the perspective of underrepresented communities — particularly women and minorities. Even the rise of the Internet has not changed this fundamental dynamic; a recent Pew Center study found that 74 percent of Americans still watch local television broadcasts or visit local television websites at least once a week. Minority ownership also improves civil engagement. A young Latina woman is likely to be more engaged by someone from a similar background as compared to a white male from out of town. Studies bear this out. According to researchers, there are higher voting rates in minority communities where radio station owners are of the same ethnicity. A healthy democracy requires a robust and diverse press to enrich the marketplace of ideas and provide for a well-informed citizenry, which in turn requires media that is representative of our complex and diverse society. The ACLU believes that in order to best serve the people and our democracy, the FCC should hold on to rules that encourage diversity and media ownership by women and minority communities. Learn more about diversity in media ownership: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: FCC
Online Protest Over SOPA Helps Today, major tech advocates are dimming their websites in protest over a proposed new law that would result in our government blocking access to websites that contain copyright infringing material. And they’re right to be concerned. There are two bills pending before Congress — the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate — that would not only impact unlawful infringing content, but also a wealth of completely legal content that has nothing to do with online piracy. We opposed SOPA in its original form mostly because the impact on non-infringing content would violate the First Amendment right to free speech of the owners and authors of that content, as well as the rights of Internet users to access that content. In fact, we were asked to present our views at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee scheduled for today and submitted our testimony in preparation for that hearing. But the hearing was postponed after SOPA’s proponents promised to significantly change the bill and after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor proposed not to bring any bill to the floor for a vote unless it represented a true consensus of those who support and those who oppose SOPA. Because of those developments over the weekend — and because the White House also issued a statement opposing any bill that would impact First Amendment-protected online content — we are redoubling our efforts to find the compromise that will not only inhibit online infringement of original works of art, but also will truly eliminate online access restrictions to lawful non-infringing content. So even though we are not dimming our website, we stand with those who are and urge those concerned about open access to the Internet to continue to contact their Members of Congress to voice their opposition to SOPA. There is way to help reduce online infringement without violating the First Amendment rights of online content producers and their readers and users. We’re counting on our elected officials in Congress to do the hard work to figure it out. Learn more about free speech: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Stop Online Piracy Act
SOPA Markup: Hail to the Nerds?After more than 12 hours of debate on December 15 and 16 markup for the Stop Online Piracy Act (HR 3261), or SOPA, as it’s better known, about the only clear conclusion is the House Judiciary Committee is not made up of nerds, as member after member on the public record disavowed ever being a nerd. However, according to the opponents of the bill, nerds are exactly what they need in order to ensure this bill does not trample all over the Internet and our First Amendment rights. The hearing began with an hour-long reading of Chairman Lamar Smith’s (R-Texas) manager’s amendment. As we noted earlier, the amendment makes a number of changes that would help to narrow the amount of lawful content impacted by the takedown orders in SOPA. Unfortunately, the changes don’t go far enough. There is still a chance that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and even search engines will end up removing access to entire websites for containing just the smallest portion of infringing content, thereby also removing content that is protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution. In the two-day course of the markup, only about half of the 55 amendments submitted were discussed. Most of the beneficial amendments, many of which were proposed by Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), were easily defeated by a two-to-one margin. Five amendments did pass on voice votes, though those amendments make only small changes and do not address our main concerns with the bill. The second day came to an abrupt end after Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) requested additional hearings, one classified and one public, in order to hear from “the nerds”: Internet engineers and security experts who were noticeably absent from the initial hearing on SOPA last month. Before calling a temporary adjournment to the markup, Chairman Smith acknowledged that the committee did not have all the facts on the potential impact of the bill and said he would consider holding an additional hearing. It’s not clear what effect, if any, such an additional hearing would have on the formulation of the bill not being considered. Many opponents of SOPA declared a victory when the markup was delayed, assuming no movement would be made until Congress came back after the New Year. However, the full committee markup is now scheduled to continue at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, December 21. But we also expect the House to leave on its holiday break before then, so it is also possible that the markup will not reconvene until January. In any case, members of the House Judiciary Committee need to hear from their constituents now more than ever. Let them know that there is a way to slow down online piracy without impeding free speech on the Internet. Tell Congress to oppose SOPA and work to find a better solution to stop online piracy without restricting lawful online content. Learn more about free speech online: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Tags: Darrell Issa, First Amendment, free speech, House Judiciary Committee, Jason Chaffetz, Lamar Smith, Stop Online Piracy Act, Zoe Lofgren
ACLU in Court Today: Government Can't Use Border Checks to Avoid the Bill of RightsAs alleged ‘Wikileak-er’ Pfc. Bradley Manning faces his highly anticipated hearing this week, the government will face its own hearing today in a suit brought by the ACLU’s Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology and the ACLU of Massachusetts on behalf of a co-founder of the Bradley Manning Support Network, David House. Late last year at Chicago's O’Hare airport, while returning from a vacation in Mexico, Mr. House was approached by two Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who questioned him about his political beliefs and then seized his computer, USB drive, video camera, and cell phone. The government retained the devices for nearly seven weeks, copying and distributing the information on them to various federal agencies.
Our complaint alleges that Mr. House was targeted solely on the basis of his First Amendment-protected association with the Bradley Manning Support Network, a group of people and organizations raising funds for the legal defense of Private Bradley Manning, the soldier in military custody for allegedly providing federally restricted information to Wikileaks. Most notable of the leak was “Collateral Murder,” a recording of a 2007 air attack by U.S. forces in Baghdad in which Iraqi civilians, including two Reuters employees, were killed. In the past year, Pfc. Manning has been subjected to gratuitously harsh treatment, including forced nakedness and sleep deprivation, at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia. Mr. House's laptop had confidential information key to the Support Network’s operations, including membership lists and strategy memos. This information, in addition to Mr. House’s personal finances and private email messages, is now in the hands of the federal government. Our lawsuit charges the government with violating Mr. House's First Amendment right to freedom of association and Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The lawsuit seeks the return or destruction of any of Mr. House’s personal data still in government hands, as well as the disclosure of whether and to whom the data has been given. In July, the government moved to dismiss our case by claiming that it has the blanket authority at the border to search and seize any person’s electronic device for as long as it wants, regardless of whether or not it has any suspicion whatsoever that a person is engaged in wrongdoing. This means the government’s authority goes totally unchecked – without requiring an articulable reason for a search, the government evades accountability for searches that violate our most fundamental constitutional protections. Today, Judge Denise Casper in the District Court of Massachusetts will hear oral arguments on the government’s motion to dismiss. We will emphasize that the Bill of Rights does not completely evaporate when someone walks into an airport. As our response to the government’s motion reads:
Whether or not one agrees with the alleged actions of Pfc. Manning or the political opinions of Mr. House, the First Amendment’s freedom of association and the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches are crucial parts of our functioning democracy. The outcome of this case will affect not only Mr. House and the Support Network, but every American who travels overseas with their laptop, phone, and other devices. Learn more about free speech: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: First Amendment, free speech, Wikileaks |
|
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
