News & Commentary

As we are all aware, tomorrow is the 4th of July. It is the time of year we celebrate the birth of our country. It is the time we have set aside to remember the day, 237 years ago, when a group of British subjects from all 13 American Colonies assembled in Independence Hall in Philadelphia to declare our independence! Independence from the British Crown, independence from tyranny, and an affirmation of a belief that each person deserves, nay, is entitled to the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (limited as their definition of “a person” was). It was a novel idea in that day and age. While the concept of self-determination was not unheard of at the time, it was certainly rare in the world, and the pursuit of this ideal was not easy. As Independence Day arrives again, it is certainly a time for celebration! Celebration of that day in 1776, and celebration of every victory for the values of freedom and equality since: the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th amendment, Women’s Suffrage and the 19th amendment, The Fair Labor Standards Act, and last week’s Supreme Court Decision striking down the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act!  This day is truly one to celebrate how far our nation has come. However, it must also give us pause to reflect on how far we have yet to go.  We should all take a moment amidst the celebration to ask ourselves what these principles of freedom and equality mean to us.  Now, especially seems a very poignant time for some sober reflection on the direction our country is moving in.  As the recent NSA tracking leaks have shown us, our leaders are not always quite as intent on upholding our founding principles as we might hope.  We see every day that the Bill of Rights, the basic freedoms which we hold to the highest standard, are only as strong as those who stand up for them.We see citizens who risk everything to bring violations of our founding principles to light mistreated before they have been convicted of any crime.  Bradley Manning faces a top-secret trial, the details of which we are forbidden from learning; Edward Snowden fled the country that he loves, likely to avoid similar treatment. So many others have had their lives ruined for standing up for ideals which are bigger than themselves. This Independence day, we should celebrate our nation, and we should celebrate our freedoms, but we must never become too comfortable; too complacent. We must always be vigilant, and always be aware that our freedoms are not guaranteed. Without concerned citizens there to say that a government action has crossed the line, there may come a time when there is no line left to cross.  It may seem a stretch of the imagination, but with every curtailment of our freedom of speech, it becomes that much harder to stand up for what is right. With every obstacle placed in the way of our freedom of assembly, it becomes that much harder to gather in protest of the wrongs committed against us. With every overstepping by the government of our right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, it becomes that much easier for the next step and the step after that. Without people there to say “No, this is not right!” it will continue until a day may come when this country no longer supports those principles which we claim to hold so dear.  Now is not a time to despair, however! There are avenues that are still available to us to tell those in charge how we feel. Tomorrow is the 4th of July, and if you, like so many other of your fellow Americans, are outraged, for example, over the NSA’s unwarranted violation of your right to privacy, then you can say something. You can write a letter to the president, you can call your representative, or you can join in one of the many Restore the Fourth protests tomorrow around the country. I will leave you now with a quote from Margret Mead that I am sure we have all heard before, and something that we should all remember: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.” Just as the members of the Constitutional Congress did all those years ago, and just as thousands of groups have done throughout our nations history, we must hold both ourselves and our government to the highest standard.

The man that last week revealed the massive National Security Agency surveillance program to the world came forward over the weekend. Edward Snowden has been working at the NSA for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell. Much is being made about the extent of the government’s data collection, and Snowden’s decision to blow the whistle. Below are links to a few of the pieces we’ve found especially insightful: Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations (by Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill and Laura Poitras, the Guardian): The individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US political history is Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA and current employee of the defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell. Checks, balances, and the National Security Agency (by the ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer and Ben Wizner, msnbc.com): Over the course of three days, the usually invisible National Security Agency has become ostentatiously visible and many Americans do not like what they see. In an effort to address the widely shared feeling that our vaunted system of checks and balances has utterly failed us, President Obama reassured the public Friday that the now-exposed spy programs were sanctioned by “all three branches of government.” Is that true? Yes and no. Edward Snowden, the N.S.A. Leaker, Comes Forward (By Amy Davidson, the New Yorker): “I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the President, if I had a personal e-mail,” Edward Snowden told the Guardian. Snowden is twenty-nine; he had worked in a technical capacity for the C.I.A. and then, by way of his employer, Booz Allen Hamilton, as a contractor for the N.S.A. He is the reason our country has, in the last week, been having a conversation on privacy and the limits of domestic surveillance. That was overdue, and one wishes it had been prompted by self-examination on the part of the Obama Administration or real oversight by Congress. But both failed, and it came in the form of Snowden handing highly classified documents—a lot of them—to journalists.

This weekend I spoke at a rally in Portland sponsored by CODEPINK to bring awareness to the case of Bradley Manning, the young American soldier who is accused of leaking government documents to WikiLeaks. The rally was set to coincide with Manning’s court-martial, which begins today, more than three years after he was arrested and charged with “aiding the enemy” for allegedly releasing large amounts of classified data to WikiLeaks.   Regardless of your stance on Manning, the conditions of his confinement have been nothing short of cruel and unusual. After his arrest, Manning was held for nine months in a windowless cell in Virginia, for 23 hours a day, while awaiting trial. In addition to being held in pre-trial solitary confinement, he had his glasses taken away so that he could not read, he was subjected to sleep deprivation through repeated physical inspections at night, and he was repeatedly forced to strip naked. (Earlier this year, a military court ruled that Manning’s treatment was indeed “excessive” and “more rigorous than necessary.” As a result, Manning will have 112 days taken off his sentence, if he is convicted.)   Bradley Manning’s case raises many other civil liberties questions. In addition to the charges that he leaked sensitive documents to people unauthorized to receive them, the government is alleging that Manning “aided the enemy,” a much more serious charge that is actually punishable by death (although in Manning’s case that has been taken off the table). Ben Wizner, who directs the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy & Technology Project, wrote an excellent piece last year on the dangers of this charge given the circumstances and the unexpected consequences that it could lead to.   Manning’s case is a complex one, but no matter what you feel about the charges against him, there is no doubt that the conditions he was held in are unacceptable. Manning’s trial is expected to last for several weeks, so this likely won’t be the last you’ll hear about his case. We’ll be following it as well, and we’ll keep you informed if more civil liberties issues arise.

The Supreme Court struck a terrifying blow to the 4th Amendment today when it ruled that the police can take DNA samples from arrested people - people who have not yet been convicted of any crime - without a warrant.  We don't often get a chance to quote Justice Scalia on this blog, but there's a first time for everything, and today he was extremely on point. In siding with dissenting Justices Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor, Scalia said: "Make no mistake about it: because of today's decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason. This will solve some extra crimes, to be sure. But so would taking your DNA when you fly on an airplane – surely the TSA must know the `identity' of the flying public. For that matter, so would taking your children's DNA when they start public school." Indeed. These days, we are asked more and more to surrender our personal liberty in the name of some idea of safety and security. But we have to ask ourselves - do we really want to live in a world where a police officer can swab the inside of your cheek, take your cells and run them through a database where you will be kept on file forever - when you haven't even been convicted of a crime? Where does it end? Once we surrender our liberties, it's very hard to get them back. The proverbial inch becomes a mile. That's why here at the ACLU of Maine, we're working to put much-needed privacy protections in place before it's too late.

This week, the Portland City Council wisely rejected a number of proposals that would have severely restricted the First Amendment rights of artists in the city's downtown area. The ACLU of Maine expressed substantial concern with the proposals, and we were gratified to see their demise. The City Council did endorse a new ordinance that would restrict artistic expression that creates a public safety hazard, but it is not clear what this restriction means or how (and against whom) it will be enforced. We will continue to monitor the implementation of this new law to make sure that it is not used to restrict free expression. Nobody has a right to create a public safety hazard, but artists should not be singled out as a group for particular legal burdens. On the heels of this victory, we are hearing rumors of a renewed push to criminalize panhandling and soliciting in Portland. This is not surprising, but it is troubling. The ACLU of Massachusetts has recently filed suit to challenge an anti-panhandling ordinance in Worcester, MA, and we will be prepared to do the same here in Maine if necessary. The First Amendment protects everyone, including artists and people living in poverty.

It took awhile, but a Gay-Straight Alliance is coming to Carver Middle School.   Bayli Silberstein has been working to establish a GSA at her school in Florida since 2011. She wants to start the club to combat bullying at her school, but administrators have put up unnecessary (and unconstitutional) roadblocks at every corner. The school board even went so far as to propose a ban on all non-academic clubs for all middle schools in the county, just to stop Bayli from starting hers.   Frustrated by more than a year of inaction, Bayli and her mother reached out to the ACLU in January of this year. Later that month, the ACLU of Florida sent a letter to the school board explaining the legal right of the club to form as well as the benefits that a GSA would have for all students. When nothing changed, the ACLU organized an online petition and over 55,000 people from across the country signed, urging the school board to support Bayli’s effort to establish the GSA.   Even in spite of all the uproar, the board voted 4-1 last month to table a proposed club policy, effectively leaving their ban in place through the remainder of the school year. With it clear that the board was not going to give in, and with all other options exhausted, the ACLU of Florida took the only step it could.   On Wednesday, a lawsuit was filed against the school board on Bayli’s behalf. On Thursday, the board gave in and agreed to let Bayli have her club.   Thankfully, most school administrators don’t react this way to the prospect of a Gay-Straight Alliance, so legal action like this is rarely needed. However, Bayli is not the first student to face pushback when attempting to start a school club and she won’t be the last. Under the law, if a public high school allows students to form any non-curricular clubs at all, then it must allow students to form any non-curricular club they want, and it must treat them equally. This is why the school board’s denial of Bayli’s request wasn’t just a misguided decision; it was against the law.    If you're trying to start a GSA at your school and your administration tries to stop you, the ACLU has your back. Check out these helpful tips for starting a GSA at your school. It’s highly unlikely you’ll face the pushback that Bayli did, but thanks to her brave determination it’ll be even tougher for schools to say ‘no.’

Back in November, I wrote about the ACLU of Maine’s education program and our standing offer to visit any school to present on the Bill of Rights. “No matter where your school is in the state of Maine we’ll come and teach there,” I said. Lately we’ve been putting those words to action – and logging some serious miles in the process. Right now we’re up in Aroostook County, teaching students at Hodgdon High School, Houlton High School, and Fort Kent Middle School as part of a three-day trip. We’re talking about lots of important topics, including free speech in school, the rights you have when dealing with police, and the Equal Protection Clause and how it relates to Maine’s new anti-bullying law. So far the classes have been great, with students asking inquisitive questions and sharing thoughtful insights into the topics we’re presenting on.   Aroostook County hasn’t been our only venture into the rural parts of Maine, though. Over the past two weeks we made a pair of visits to Piscataquis County, speaking with students at Greenville High School and Foxcroft Academy. Earlier this month we made trips to Searsport, New Gloucester, York, and Scarborough. Next month we’ll be heading to Machias, Skowhegan, Readfield, just to name a few.   Even with all these miles logged (nearly 2,000 in March alone!) our offer still stands: No matter where your school is in the state of Maine, we’ll come and teach there. Send me an e-mail at [email protected] or call our office at 774-5444 to find out more or to schedule a visit.

The injustice of solitary confinement and the transformative power of art are explored in Herman's House, a new feature documentary from first-time director Angad Singh Bhalla. Join the ACLU of Maine on Wednesday, April 24 at Space Gallery in Portland for a screening of this fascinating film! Herman's House follows the unlikely friendship between visual artist Jackie Sumell and Herman Wallace, one of America's most famous inmates, as they collaborate on an unprecedented - and widely acclaimed - art installation. The screening will be followed by a live video Q&A with Sumell. To learn more about the film and buy tickets, go here. To learn more about the ACLU of Maine's work to reduce the use of solitary, go here.

Last night, the Public Safety Committee of the Portland City Council rejected most of the proposals before it restricting the constitutional rights of street artists to create and sell works of art in Portland. But, the committee gave its approval to one proposal--requiring artists to register with the city and obtain a special tag. At the ACLU of Maine, we've been outspoken in our defense of street artists for many years. One of the first matters I handled for the organization when I started as a staff attorney here nine years ago was a negotiation with the Portland city attorney over city regulation of political and artistic speech. The ordinances that resulted from those negotiations are very protective of First Amendment rights, but unfortunately, some members of the public, and some members of the City Council, want to undo that good work.  Portland generally takes pride in being an artist-friendly city, and hopefully when these proposals go before the full council, they will all be rejected outright.