(2) Sun 25 Jan 98 22:02 By: Christopher Baker To: All Re: Re: Part 1 of 2 ACLU News of 01/25/98 St: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ @EID:1cd2 2439b040 @MSGID: 1:18/14 34CBFCE3 @PID: GenMsg 5.00 [0002] @Date: 26 Jan 98 03:02:59 UTC * Copy of message posted via CIVLIB * Date: 25 Jan 98 21:25:23 * From: Christopher Baker * To: All * Message text was not edited! [part 1 of 2] Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 11:18:16 -0500 (EST) From: ACLU Newsfeed Owner Subject: ACLU News 01-25-98: Veggie Libel, Internet Filters, More! ------------------------------------------------------------------ 01-25-98 ACLU Newsfeed -- ACLU News Direct to YOU! ---------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE ACLU NEWSROOM **The Latest News Can Always Be Found At:** http://www.aclu.org/news/pressind.html * Alabama Supreme Court Rules In Courtroom Prayer Case * ACLU Says 'Veggie Libel' Laws Are Patently Unconstitutional * ACLU Warns of Legal Action if CA Library Keeps Internet Filters on Public Computers * Colorado Fire Chief Rescinds 'Gag Order' After ACLU Lawsuit * ACLU Says GOP Leadership Masquerading As Boosters Of Beleaguered Public Schools * Recent Headlines from the ACLU NewsWire ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama Supreme Court Rules In Courtroom Prayer Case Statement of Olivia Turner, Executive Director American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Friday, January 23, 1998 MONTGOMERY, AL -- We are disappointed in the Alabama Supreme Court's unwillingness to resolve the constitutionality of prayer and the display of the Ten Commandments in Judge Roy Moore's courtroom. It is important to emphasize, however, that today's decision did not uphold the constitutionality of Judge Moore's practices, which we continue to believe are unconstitutional. Instead, the court ruled on technical grounds that it did not have a proper case before it, and thus could not reach the constitutional questions. In a 5-0 decision, with four judges recusing themselves, the Alabama State Supreme Court said Gov. Fob James and Attorney General Bill Pryor lacked standing to bring the lawsuit that sought to perpetuate Circuit Judge Roy Moore's religious practices. In today's action, the court vacated a lower court ruling that Judge's Moores practices were unconstitutional. The court also dismissed the state's appeal of that lawsuit. However, the action leaves open the possibility of further legal challenges to prayer and religious displays in Alabama courtrooms. At this time, we are exploring our legal options. If someone were to come forward with the standing to object to the establishment of religion in Judge Moore's courtroom, we would certainly give every consideration to pursuing a new case. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Says 'Veggie Libel' Laws Are Patently Unconstitutional FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, January 22, 1998 NEW YORK -- With popular talk show host Oprah Winfrey facing a libel trial for "defaming beef," the American Civil Liberties Union today said that so-called "veggie libel" laws are unconstitutional. The libel laws seeks to block speakers from discussing important public health matters concerning food. In the trial in Amarillo, Texas, cattle ranchers are seeking more than $12 million in damages they claim resulted from statements made by Oprah and her guests about "Mad Cow" disease. In the last few years, at least 13 states, including Texas, have enacted litigation, also known as "food disparagement laws," that makes it easier for growers and ranchers to recover damages from anyone who alleges health risks associated with their product. "These so-called veggie libel laws raise obvious First Amendment problems and threaten to chill speech on important issues of public concern," said Steven R. Shapiro, Legal Director of the national ACLU. In particular, speakers may face multi-million dollar verdicts if a jury later determines that the challenged statements were not based on "reasonable and reliable scientific inquiry, facts or data." Given the ambiguous nature of scientific inquiry, this puts speakers in the precarious situation of having to prove facts still in dispute. Many people will simply refrain from speaking under threat of a lawsuit, Shapiro said. Ultimately, a jury may end up deciding crucial differences of opinion about food safety months or even years after an issue arises, Shapiro added, a situation that is dangerous both to the First Amendment and to public health. Citing these and other concerns, in April 1994 the ACLU of Georgia filed a challenge to that state's law on behalf of two environmental watchdog groups, Action for a Clean Environment and Parents for Pesticide Alternatives. The groups claimed that the Georgia law would have a chilling effect on their efforts to educate the public about environmental and food safety. But a judge dismissed the suit, saying that without an actual case to review, the issue "is not ripe for review." The ACLU continues to monitor the veggie law's effect, in Texas as well in other states, and said that it may become involved in legal challenges as the issue ripens. The states that have enacted laws already are: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and South Dakota and Texas. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Warns of Legal Action if CA Library Keeps Internet Filters on Public Computers FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, January 21, 1998 BAKERSFIELD, CA -- In a letter sent today to city officials in Kern County, California, the American Civil Liberties Union said it may take legal action if officials do not remove Internet filtering software from public library computers within 10 days. The ACLU said that the software installed by the county blocks access to a wide range of socially valuable, constitutionally protected speech on the Internet. The county library system provides at least 50 computer terminals in more than 25 library branches. "We have been negotiating in good faith with Kern County since last August to try to resolve constitutional problems with the Internet filtering software they are using," said ACLU National Staff Attorney Ann Beeson, who signed the letter to county officials on behalf of the national ACLU and the ACLU's of Northern and Southern California. "The time has come for Kern County to realize that there is simply no way for a software program to make legal distinctions between protected and unprotected speech," Beeson concluded. The controversy began in July 1996, after the Kern County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution to block online material defined as "harmful to minors" under California state law. Upon learning that the board's solution involved installation of a filtering program called "Bess," the ACLU contacted officials to advise them of the free speech problems with this approach. Although the developers of the Bess software had earlier informed the board that "we cannot customize [the software] to filter 'harmful material' by web site as defined in California Penal Code Section 313," the board went ahead with the program. Only after hearing from the ACLU did the board go back to the makers of Bess and ask -- unsuccessfully -- that the company "refine" the software. "We continue to hope that this issue can be resolved without litigation, but we are prepared to go to federal court to protect the free speech rights of library patrons and Internet speakers," said Peter Eliasberg, an attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. "Frankly, we are surprised at the Board's action," he added. "As the American Library Association has long recognized, libraries should be in the business of providing information of all kinds, not censoring it." In its letter to the county, the ACLU noted that officials in the city of San Jose and in Santa Clara County, California had recently decided against installing filtering programs on public computer terminals in its libraries. The issue has drawn cities across the country into a national debate about whether library systems should limit what people can see on the Internet. A library in Loudon County, Virginia is currently facing a legal challenge from local library patrons after adopting a similar Internet blocking policy. The ACLU is considering an intervention in that lawsuit on behalf of online speakers who are blocked from reaching library patrons, Ann Beeson said. Ultimately, the library controversy may lead back to a landmark Supreme Court ruling in Reno v. ACLU, striking down a federal Internet censorship law that contemplated restrictions on access to online speech. In its sweeping decision, issued in June 1997, the Court confirmed that the Internet is analogous to books, not broadcast, and is deserving of the highest First Amendment protection. The ACLU was a lead plaintiff and litigator in the suit. "Web sites accessed from a library's computer are just like the books on a library's shelves," said Ann Brick, Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Northern California. "The Constitution prevents the government from censoring either one." Note: The ACLU's letter to Kern County can be found at http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/kerncodemand.html. Complete information on the ACLU's legal challenges to cyber-censorship laws can be found at http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/hmcl.html. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Colorado Fire Chief Rescinds 'Gag Order' After ACLU Lawsuit FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, January 21, 1998 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO -- Fire Chief Manuel Navarro today rescinded a controversial "gag order" under which firefighters here faced discipline if they publicly disagreed with his decisions. [end part 1 of 2] - DB B2300sl/001027 @ Origin: Rights On! - An ACLU in Every Pot! - Edgewater_FL_USA (1:18/14) --- GenMsg [0002] (cbaker84@digital.net) * Origin: Rights On! for Privacy! It's a Right not a privilege! (1:18/14) SEEN-BY: 12/12 218/890 1001 270/101 353/250 396/1 3615/50 51 3804/180 @PATH: 18/14 374/98 46 12/12 396/1 3615/50 218/1001