Hey everyone!
 
You've probably heard by now about a Florida pastor's plans to make September 11, 2010 "International Burn the Quran Day"--a plan that has sparked an outcry from community leaders across the country who see the event as intolerant and dangerous.
 
But, as you know by now, faithful readers, we cannot impose silence on speech, even if it is offensive to our personal values.  Click here for an excellent piece from the ACLU of Florida's director, Howard Simon, laying out the case for First Amendment protection, no matter the content.

This month, the Ninth Circuit joined the unfortunate list of courts that have said that when police secretly attach a GPS device to your car, it's not a search. Refusing to rehear a January ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that because you have no expectation of privacy in your driveway (because, in part, a neighborhood kid could run there to get a lost ball - seriously), that you cannot object, under the Fourth Amendment, to a cop hanging out in your driveway, and ... well, attaching a satellite monitoring device to your car.

Accompanying this disheartening and misguided opinion was a strongly-worded dissenting opinion from Chief Judge Alex Kosinski. He noted that "The needs of law enforcement, to which my colleagues seem inclined to refuse nothing, are quickly making personal privacy a distant memory. 1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it’s here at last."

Those sure are words after the ACLU's own heart. But it was perhaps his comments about his colleagues' motivations for this ruling that are the most thought-provoking.

Judge Kosinski suggests that federal judges, who as a group are well-off and well-educated, are out of touch with the realities of the litigants before them. He reminds us that the constitution's application must be consistent among the rich and poor to have any meaning:

"There's been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there's one kind of diversity that doesn't exist: No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter. Judges, regardless of race, ethnicity or sex, are selected from the class of people who don't live in trailers or urban ghettos. The everyday problems of people who live in poverty are not close to our hearts and minds because that's not how we and our friends live......When you glide your BMW into your underground garage or behind an electric gate, you don’t need to worry that somebody might attach a tracking device to it while you sleep. But the Constitution doesn’t prefer the rich over the poor; the man who parks his car next to his trailer is entitled to the same privacy and peace of mind as the man whose urban fortress is guarded by the Bel Air Patrol. The panel’s breezy opinion is troubling on a number of grounds, not least among them its unselfconscious cultural elitism."

The ACLU of Nevada certainly agrees with Judge Kosinski's disappointment.

 Today in front of Las Vegas City Hall: 

The ACLU has spoken out against a proposed Las Vegas ordinance that would ban, among other things, hula-hooping on Fremont Street.  Our concerns about this plan caught the attention of hula hoop enthusiasts everywhere, and an amazing group from Hoopnotica organized a protest today in front of City Hall.  The media was there, too.  Check out the links below.

The ACLU is committed to ensuring that First Amendment activity is protected on Fremont Street and in all other public forums.  That includes handing out literature, street performance, and, yes, hula-hooping.

Just another day in Nevada!

 Fox 5 Vegas, video:

http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/24673198/detail.html

 MyNews 3 Las Vegas - NBC: video

http://www.mynews3.com/video.php?articleID=7727

 KTNV Action 13 News - ABC: video

http://www.ktnv.com/Global/searchresults.asp?vendor=ez&qu=hoop+protest

 8 NewsNow - CBS: video

http://www.8newsnow.com/Global/category.asp?C=28259&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=5037352&flvUri&partnerclipid

 Las Vegas Review Journal-  video

http://www.lvrj.com/multimedia/Hula-Hoopers-Protest-at-City-Hall-101009369.html

 Las Vegas Sun

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/18/free-speech-debate-draws-hula-hoop-fans-to-vegas/

 Photos courtesy of Hoopnotica.com

Harry Reid, U.S. Senate Majority Leader, recently came out against the planned mosque near Ground Zero. According to news reports, his spokesman said:

"The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. Senator Reid respects that but thinks that the mosque should be built someplace else."

This position, shared by many, including Sharron Angle, Reid’s opponent in the current U.S. senate race, conflates terrorism and Islam and ignores the meaning of the First Amendment. The First Amendment prohibits government officials from telling people how they express themselves or telling religious groups how to practice. A place of worship must be properly zoned, but government has no right to dictate what a religious entity does there – nor can it single out one religion's adherents for discriminatory treatment because their mere presence may be offensive to some. A church and temple are located closer to the Ground Zero site --- the First Amendment prohibits the kind of religious discrimination Angle and Reid have endorsed.

This is not an issue that is limited to the current controversy over Ground Zero. A statement of support for free speech should not be followed by “but.” While the First Amendment is not a blanket right, its scope must be wide if it is to be a meaningful protection against government censorship. Often, just like Senator Reid in this instance, people say “I support free speech but…” and then go on to point to a type of or topic of speech that they feel comfortable banning. The problem is, we all have our own hot button topics. If we carved out exceptions for the many types of expression people find offensive, there would be nothing left that we could say.

In contrast to Angle and Reid, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg understands that the tragedy of 9/11 cannot justify carving out an exception to the First Amendment. In a recent speech he passionately defended the right of people to build the mosque near Ground Zero:

"On September 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked 'What God do you pray to?' 'What beliefs do you hold?'

 The attack was an act of war — and our first responders defended not only our City but also our country and our Constitution. We do not honor their lives by denying the very Constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights — and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked."

It is unfortunate that neither candidate for U.S. Senate from Nevada shares Mayor Bloomberg’s respect for free speech.

Heading to Burning Man this year?  Check out this piece about your rights in Black Rock City. And, if you're in Reno, go here to get info about our Burning Man-themed party on August 25th!

Originally published in the August edition of Reno Tahoe Tonight:

Sand. Nudity. Sculpture. Neon. Dancing. Civil Liberties...? All of these are critical components of Burning Man and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Nevada will be there to help make sure of it. For the third year in a row, the ACLU of Nevada staff and volunteers will be at Burning Man to act as legal observers, collect complaints, inform people about their rights, and make sure law enforcement behavior stays within the bounds of the Constitution.

Although Black Rock City is like no other city, it does share a common characteristic with every other city in America: its citizens do not give up their constitutional freedoms and liberties while on the playa. And like every other city, conflicts between law enforcement agencies and citizens do occur.

Each year, as part of the cost of renting the playa from the federal Bureau of Land Management, Burning Man organizers are presented with a non-negotiable bill for estimated law enforcement costs, including an officer-to-citizen ratio much higher than the normal ratio for community policing off the playa. These officer staffing levels indicate that law enforcement agencies view Burning Man as a “target-rich” environment closer to a violent protest. And in that environment, there is always the possibility for law enforcement to bend the rules a little, particularly with regard to the Fourth Amendment, and see participation in Burning Man as probable cause for a search.

Ultimately, the lesson on the playa is the same as off-playa: knowing your rights can be the best defense against any abuse of government power. On the playa, perhaps the most important right that Burners have is the right to refuse to consent to a search. Though a law enforcement officer does have the right to briefly stop you to ask for your identity without probable cause of a crime (and if this occurs, you should be truthful, as lying to an officer may be a crime), an officer may not require you to answer additional questions, detain, or search you without either 1) consent or 2) probable cause. Your refusal to give consent does not constitute probable cause for search.

All Burners should read the law enforcement section of the official Burning Man Survival Guide for more detailed information. You can also download the Burning Man “Know Your Rights” card or file a complaint about your interaction with law enforcement at www.aclunv.org. For questions on the playa, make sure to visit the ACLU of Nevada’s booth in Center Camp.

This is not legal advice. This is information digesting the general state of the law. We urge you to consult a lawyer for legal advice about a particular legal question or issue you may have. If you believe you are coerced into giving consent for a search, or that you are searched without probable cause, you may wish to contact the ACLU of Nevada, at www.aclunv.org.

ACLUNV's Rebecca Gasca and Lee Rowland at a pre-Burning Man event.

Judge Vaughn Walker just doubled down on upholding equal marriage rights: he issued an opinion today denying the "stay" (a legal delay) of his ruling overturning discriminatory Proposition 8, and ordered state officials to begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses as of next Wednesday, August 18th!

The judge noted that the proponents of Prop 8 had failed to show that they were likely to succeed on appeal, and thus could not justify a stay of his decision that an ongoing injustice occurs each day that California denies its residents the opportunity for full equality and dignity.

Even more interesting? Judge Walker suggests that the proponents of Prop 8 may not even get their appeal heard. The proponents' case, at its heart, rests on the theory that there is a strong state interest in upholding opposite-sex marriage. However, there are some defendants who will be noticeably absent on appeal: the state of California and its officials. In fact, Governor Schwarzenegger and others have come out forcefully in favor of granting immediate marriage rights to all couples.

The U.S. Supreme Court has previously said that private groups (like the Prop 8 proponents) lack the right to uphold the constitutionality of state laws. We Nevadans saw that fight play out here in the Silver State when our Attorney General refused to challenge the federal health care bill on behalf of the state. So how will the Prop 8 proponents make the state's arguments - when the state isn't even willing to do so? That will be the next chapter in this fascinating saga, and Judge Walker indicates it may be the last.

See the opinion here.

Just yesterday, a court in Churchill County, Nevada upheld the First Amendment by ruling that a disgruntled teacher who was the subject of a school newspaper story could not sue over the article's truthful content.

A student journalist, Lauren MacLean, investigated student concerns over the teacher's role in musical auditions and the article was printed in Churchill High's school paper. The ensuing controversy, known as "Choirgate", ended with the teacher suing the school's journalism adviser, principal, and superintendent for permitting the story to go to print. Fortunately, the judge recognized that the First Amendment protects truthful journalism, and that a court of law was the wrong place to litigate this fight.

The ACLU is thrilled that this decision ensures that lawsuits cannot be used to shut down the free flow of ideas, even on a high school campus. As we always say around here, the cure for bad speech is more speech--if you disagree with a news story, consider an editorial retort rather than a lawsuit.

Read the news story here.

A huge step forward today on the road toward marriage equality.

Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled a few hours ago that California's Proposition 8, an initiative denying same-sex couples the equal right to marry their partners, is unconstitutional on not one, but two grounds. Agreeing with the ACLU's long-held position, he ruled that denial of marriage rights to all couples violates the constitutional guarantees of both Equal Protection and Due Process. The ACLU applauds the decision which rightly recognizes that all couples deserve for their realtionships to be recognized equally and with dignity.

But while we recognize this as a time to celebrate, we also know this case is not over. Proponents of Prop 8 have indicated they will appeal to the 9th Circuit, and it is likely that the case could travel all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. It's also important to remember that such rulings are not determined in a vacuum. As James Esseks, Director of the ACLU's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender project put it, "in order to give this case the best possible chance of success as it moves through the appeals courts, we need to show that America is ready for same-sex couples to marry by continuing to seek marriage and other relationship protections in states across the country. It's simply not fair, and not legal, to continue to exclude committed same-sex couples from marriage."

Here in Nevada, we worked hard with other community partners and the bill's sponsor, Senator David Parks, to pass Nevada's Domestic Partnership law, which has been a smashing success since it took effect last October. But the fight goes on: we continue to seek full recognition of same-sex relationships all over the country. The ACLU is working with same-sex couples in many states, working to pass marriage bills in New York, Rhode Island and Maine and seeking domestic partnership recognition in Montana, Hawaii, Illinois, New Mexico and Alaska.

And we won't get complacent over our domestic partnership victory here in the Silver State. The ACLU of Nevada will fight for a future where all Nevadans have a full opportunity to marry the person they love. As the court has demonstrated today, it's the constitutional thing to do.

This week, Las Vegas summer law intern Rick Sadowski answers our question: there are a lot of reasons to support the ACLU--what's your reason?

“Are you one of those bleeding heart liberals?” It’s a question I have been asked many times since I announced that I’d be spending my first summer in law school interning with the ACLU of Nevada. The question came only as a half-surprise; the ACLU has a reputation (accurate or not) for supporting liberal causes, and at times garnering disdain from conservatives whose ideas have been challenged. In reality though, the ACLU has a history of stirring the pot in all political directions.

A group will praise the ACLU one day while cursing their name the next. For instance, a gun rights activist pleased to have the ACLU defending Second Amendment rights one day may very well dislike the ACLU’s efforts to limit police powers the next. Or, a street preacher may like the ACLU’s work supporting religious and free speech rights, though be against the ACLU’s stand on LGBT equality issues.

For me, the sometimes diametrically opposite efforts of the ACLU are what makes the organization so important, and ultimately attracted me to an internship position with their Las Vegas office this summer. In a time where political rhetoric flourishes in a climate of sharp political divide, the ACLU readily tackles even the most unpopular causes. Unbridled by political pressure and popular opinion polls, the ACLU focuses on preserving essential American rights provided to us by the U.S. Constitution.

Since starting my internship with the ACLU of Nevada, I have been more mindful of instances where people are willing, and even eager, to sell their rights for some other objective. I witnessed this phenomenon firsthand here in Las Vegas. At a recent rally in support of assemblyman Chad Christensen’s bid to import Arizona’s SB 1070 to Nevada (now abandoned after challenges brought by the ACLU and others), one adamant supporter spoke up. She told about her half-Hispanic son’s frequent interactions with law enforcement. Because of the color of his skin, her son was routinely stopped for questioning, even before the AZ law dominated headlines. She was quick to tell her son that she was glad he was being profiled, and she hoped for more of the same. In her mind the benefit of maybe “catching” an illegal alien or other criminal was well worth the “inconvenience” of the targeted racial profiling and increased scrutiny by police.

Frustration over illegal immigration is natural and understandable. Polls show wide support of Arizona’s immigration bill. However, the ACLU strives to prevent the frustrations of even the majority from eroding our fundamental rights. While others obliviously (or sometimes intentionally) forgo the basic freedoms provided for by the Constitution, the ACLU is there to ensure our forefathers’ ideals are protected.

I am proud of the work I have done with the ACLU of Nevada this summer, and proud of the work the ACLU has done and will continue to do. As ACLU founder Roger Baldwin put it: “So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we'll be called a democracy." The individual rights and liberties given to us by the Constitution are guaranteed for everyone, whether liberal (bleeding hearts and others), conservative, or somewhere in between.

Rick Sadowski is a law student at Hofstra University

The ACLU defends everyone's right to gather in public protest, even if the speech is frowned upon by many.  That's the beauty of the First Amendment--we all have a voice.

You've no doubt heard of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church.  The group's messages are highly controversial and upsetting to many.  But direct from Comic-Con in San Diego, a great example of why the best antidote to bad speech is more speech: http://tinyurl.com/27kx2e5