ACLU "Troubled" by White House Request for Network Censorship of Bin Laden Videotapes
ACLU "Troubled" by White House Request for Network Censorship of Bin Laden Videotapes
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW YORK--The American Civil Liberties Union said today that it was troubled by a White House request that broadcast news media outlets edit or decline to show any future videotaped statements from Osama bin Laden or his followers.
"The ACLU is troubled by the Bush Administration's request and the agreement by the networks to withhold information from the American public that is freely available to the rest of the world," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero.
The request is not unconstitutional, Romero said, since it was apparently not couched as a demand. But he added that the government should not be encouraging censorship as we engage in a battle to preserve our freedoms.
According to news reports, the five major news organizations, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News (along with its subsidiary, MSNBC), the Cable News Network and the Fox News Channel all agreed to the White House request.
Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said at a news briefing yesterday that government officials were primarily concerned that terrorists could be using the broadcasts to send coded messages to other terrorists. But according to published reporters, the Administration presented no evidence of such coding, and in any case, the ACLU said, the tapes have been broadcast worldwide and are available online.
"This is not a question of the release of classified information," Romero said. "The way to protect the American people is not to keep them in ignorance of threats we may be facing or information we may need. This is a time when the need to be fully informed is more important than ever."
"We must not allow the First Amendment -- the underpinning of our democracy -- to become a casualty during times of national crisis."
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
Related Content
-
Press ReleaseMar 2025
LGBTQ Rights
Free Speech
Library Patrons Sue Greenville County Over Widespread Removals and Restrictions of LGBTQ Books
GREENVILLE, S.C. – Local library patrons, with help from the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of South Carolina, are suing officials in South Carolina’s most populous county for systematically purging literature by and about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people from its public library collection. The lawsuit asks a federal court to permanently block Greenville County’s policies and practices that have deliberately hidden or removed dozens of books that positively portray transgender and gender-nonconforming people. The ACLU and the ACLU of South Carolina filed the lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on behalf of families and residents of Greenville County, arguing that county officials have violated library patrons’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. "Books are one of our greatest tools to learn about other peoples, the world around us, and more importantly to learn about ourselves through representation,” said Greg Rogers, a Greenville County parent and plaintiff in the lawsuit. “All children and young adults should have equal access to these tools. Keeping even one child from accessing the representation they provide is a travesty for the equality of all children.” “For years, the library board has tried to censor patrons' access to diverse stories,” said Stephen Shelato, co-founder of Freedom in Libraries Advocacy Group (FLAG), a vibrant local library group that has lobbied hard against anti-LGBTQ discrimination at the Greenville Library. “Local parents believe that exposure to diverse stories is healthy and developmentally appropriate, but board members have repeatedly chosen instead to follow the demands of a loud minority of activists and partisan groups. Local parents are now courageously speaking out and taking action—and they deserve the full support of our community." “Greenville County cannot censor our public libraries merely because its officials find certain materials politically, morally, or religiously objectionable,” said Allen Chaney, Legal Director for the ACLU of South Carolina. “After years of public advocacy against these discriminatory actions, we must now rely on the courts to vindicate a simple truth: the constitution protects everyone, including LGBTQ people.” “Greenville County’s policy is a blatant infringement on the rights we all share to learn, read, and speak as we please,” said Shana Knizhnik, Senior Staff Attorney for the ACLU’s Jon L. Stryker and Slobodan Randjelović LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Decades of First Amendment precedent protects the freedom of readers and community members like our plaintiffs, and nobody’s story is unacceptable simply because of who they are or who they love. Across the country, communities like Greenville are standing up and fighting back against efforts to push LGBTQ people from public life, and we’re hopeful the court will see through these discriminatory acts of censorship.” New policies adopted by the Greenville County Library Board in 2024 require that all materials with “illustrations, themes, or story lines [that] affirm, portray, or discuss changing the appearance of a minor’s gender in ways inconsistent with the minor’s biological sex” or with “illustrations, themes, or storylines that celebrate, portray, or affirm gender transitioning” must be removed from the juvenile and young adult sections of the library. The library system has moved these books to adults-only sections of the library, limiting access for young readers. Meanwhile, the library system has completely removed dozens of titles that positively portray LGBTQ people, including in adult sections of the library. As today’s court filing explains, the library system’s leadership has granted more than 50 requests from the Greenville County Republican Women’s Club to remove LGBTQ materials, while disproportionately refusing other patrons’ requests to order new LGBTQ materials. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit identify specific books that have been removed from the Juvenile section. Amber Galea, parent of two children, says her children are interested in books that have been moved out of the Juvenile section, including Hocus and Pocus and the Spell for Home by A.R. Capetta, The Cardboard Kingdom by Chad Sell, Riding Freedom by Pam Muñoz Ryan, and Snapdragon by Kat Leyh. The following are other examples of books that the library has moved out of juvenile and young adult sections: Julián is a Mermaid by Jessica Love (an award-winning children’s picture book about a young boy who wishes to dress up like a mermaid) Ana on the Edge by A.J. Sass (an award-winning book about a 12-year-old nonbinary figure skater) Red: A Crayon’s Story by Michael Hall (a picture book about a blue crayon that was mistakenly labeled as “red”) A list of 59 books that were removed entirely from the Greenville County library system in 2023 is available here. The complaint filed today can be found here. The Greenville County Library Board members who promoted anti-transgender collection policies in 2024 did not try to keep their discriminatory motives a secret. According to those board members’ public comments, library materials condoning gender fluidity are “trash” and the “idea” of “transgenderism” is a “dangerous thing.” As one library board member put it: “[T]he presence of a transgender character in a book … is grounds for relocating it to the adult section.” Meanwhile library board members and officials have ordered Pride Month displays to be taken down, ordered library staff to remove advertising for an LGBTQ book club, and encouraged librarians to use the “weeding” process — meant to remove books that are outdated or in physical disrepair — as a pretext to throw out LGBTQ titles, including books purchased within the past five years. These actions by library board members and library administrators have contributed to an ongoing “culture of fear,” as highlighted in an October 2023 Greenville News article. That cultural shift has led the staff turnover rate to double. For years, local advocates and library employees have shown resilience in the face of these attacks. Greenville County residents have shown up to speak against censorship at Library Board meetings. One library board member resigned in protest in July 2022 after the board chair ordered Pride Month displays to be taken down, and a former library communications director resigned in October 2022 after being pressured to remove a TV slide promoting an LGBTQ book club. Today’s lawsuit seeks to address the practice of viewpoint discrimination in the Greenville County Library System, which reports 1.2 million visits per year across 12 locations. The plaintiffs are asking the court to uphold the freedom to access information, a right derived from the First Amendment. They also ask the court to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law for all Greenville County residents. Other South Carolina library systems considering following in the path of Greenville County should take heed.Affiliate: South Carolina -
News & CommentaryMar 2025
Free Speech
A Statement from Constitutional Law Scholars on Columbia
The government may not threaten funding cuts as a tool to pressure recipients into suppressing First Amendment–protected speech.By: David Cole, Eugene Volokh, Michael C. Dorf -
News & CommentaryMar 2025
Free Speech
A Letter From Palestinian Activist Mahmoud Khalil
Khalil, who was unlawfully arrested in retaliation for his advocacy, details this violation of his free speech rights.By: Mahmoud Khalil -
Press ReleaseMar 2025
Free Speech
Immigrants' Rights
Court Rules Mahmoud Khalil’s Lawsuit Challenging His Unlawful Detention by ICE Should Move Forward in New Jersey
NEW YORK – The Southern District Court of New York ruled that the case challenging ICE’s unlawful detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia graduate student and lawful permanent resident, should be transferred to New Jersey. The Trump administration had sought to transfer the case to Louisiana. The judge also reaffirmed a previous ruling that blocked Mr. Khalil’s deportation in the absence of a court order. “This is a first step, but we need to continue to demand justice for Mahmoud. His unlawful and unjust detention cannot stand. We will not stop fighting until he is home with me,” said Dr. Noor Abdalla, the wife of Mahmoud Khalil. Mr. Khalil’s legal team had argued that if the court allowed this case to play out in Louisiana, it would be rewarding the Trump administration’s unlawful attempt to manipulate jurisdiction by transferring Mr. Khalil across state lines in the middle of the night. In the early morning hours after his arrest, Khalil’s attorneys filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that ICE’s arrest and detention of Khalil on the basis of his speech and activism for Palestinian human rights violates the Due Process Clause and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Right before his habeas petition was filed, he was transferred under ICE custody to a facility in New Jersey, before being sent to Louisiana. In a letter written from the Louisiana detention center yesterday, Mahmoud Khalil shared: “In the weeks ahead, students, advocates, and elected officials must unite to defend the right to protest for Palestine. At stake are not just our voices, but the fundamental civil liberties of all. Knowing fully that this moment transcends my individual circumstances, I hope nonetheless to be free to witness the birth of my first-born child.” The case can now proceed expeditiously to two pending motions that seek Mr. Khalil’s release from custody. Today’s order states that these motions remain pending on the same schedule originally issued. Mr. Khalil’s legal team has sought his release on bail, and submitted reams of letters in support of that request and a declaration from his wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla. His lawyers are also urging the court to issue a preliminary injunction that would immediately release him from detention and block the Trump administration’s invocation of the foreign policy bar, a vague, rarely-used provision of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. The foreign policy bar authorizes the government to exclude or remove noncitizens whom the U.S. secretary of state designates as foreign policy concerns. The administration is invoking the provision to revoke the visas and green cards of noncitizens who have engaged in speech in support of Palestinian rights. As the filings document, the administration is abusing the INA’s foreign policy provision to retaliate against the constitutionally protected expression of views the administration opposes. Mr. Khalil is represented by Amy Greer from Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the American Civil Liberties Union, and Alina Das, co-director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at New York University (NYU) School of Law. The following are quotes from Mr. Khalil’s legal team: Samah Sisay, staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights: “The government transferred Mr. Khalil to a remote private prison in Louisiana hours after his arrest and the filing of his original habeas petition – an intentional and retaliatory attempt to silence his speech in support of Palestinian rights and interfere with the jurisdiction of the New York and New Jersey Courts. Mr. Khalil should be free and home with his wife awaiting the birth of their first child, and we will continue to do everything possible to make that happen.” Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union: “This is just the beginning, but it is a moment to celebrate. The court’s ruling sends a critical message to courts across the country, who are sure to face similar unprecedented challenges to their authority in the days that come, that the judiciary must not shy from its constitutional role. And no judicial role is more important than acting as a check on executive abuses the Trump administration has made the defining feature of its first 60 days. After this first step, we will eagerly and aggressively seek to get Mahmoud out, bring him home, and then defend his and others’ right to speak freely about Palestine or any other issue without fear of detention and deportation.” Ramzi Kassem, Professor of Law at the City University of New York and Co-Director of CLEAR, a legal non-profit and clinic: “The government first moved Mahmoud to Louisiana, then it tried to move his federal case there, too, hoping for better odds in court. The judge rightly rejected that approach and transferred the case to a court in the greater New York City area, close to Mahmoud’s home, where the case and, most importantly, Mahmoud himself, belong.” Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union: “With this decision, the Court rightfully rejected the Trump administration’s cruel ploy to move Mahmoud Khalil’s case to Louisiana. This ruling sends a message loud and clear that Trump and his MAGA cronies cannot just manipulate and abuse the judiciary as they please to suppress the speech of activists for Palestinian rights. This is an important step toward ensuring that the administration's unconstitutional practices are stopped in their tracks and that Mr. Khalil is reunited with his family in New York. We are ready to defend Mr. Khalil’s rights in New Jersey to secure his immediate release.” Amy Greer, associate attorney at Dratel + Lewis: “We are ready to fight just as hard for Mr. Khalil in the district of New Jersey. He was taken by plainclothes federal agents, transferred in the middle of the night across state lines, and has been detained for over a week now, all because of his advocacy for Palestinian freedom. We will not stop working until Mr. Khalil is home with his wife."Court Case: Khalil v. TrumpAffiliate: New York