CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
"ACLU Where Are You," He Asked. Here We Are!Last month, we told you about Wayne Weatherbee, a Clermont, Fla., businessman whose free speech rights were being quashed by city officials. Weatherbee erected 12 signs on his business property in October 2009 in political protest against the city, which he claims selectively enforced its laws against him and his business, including falsely arresting him. Beginning Tuesday, February 2, the city began imposing a $75/day fine on Bee's Auto until the signs are removed or Weatherbee obtains a permit. The ACLU of Florida filed a lawsuit on his behalf, and we stand tall and proud to report that ACLU attorneys secured a preliminary injunction in federal court yesterday, when a federal judge ruled from the bench that the city of Clermont is violating Mr. Weatherbee's free speech rights. "This is a clear victory for Mr. Weatherbee, and for free speech in Florida," said Maria Kayanan, ACLU of Florida Associate Legal Director, after leaving today's hearing. "When government tries to ride roughshod over free speech and protected political protest, the ACLU will answer the call to action to defend the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment." Yesterday's ruling found that the signs were clearly speech protected by the First Amendment, and the city had not been able to show any legitimate reason why it could prohibit them. So, Mr. Weatherbee will be allowed to continue displaying the signs on his property, and the city is prohibited from imposing fines against Bee's Auto under the code. Meanwhile, the lawsuit will move forward as the ACLU attempts to permanently strike down the unconstitutional code. "As the judge said, the relief she granted is extraordinary, under extraordinary circumstances, and in a unique case. This is proof that the little guy can still get a measure of justice in our great society," said Derek Brett, ACLU cooperating attorney. It's a sweet day for free speech in Central Florida. Someone pass the orange juice, we've still got more work to do...
ACLU…Where Are You?Don’t fret, we’re here! The right to free speech is undeniably one of the most fundamental rights we have as Americans. It is the breath that sustains our democracy. When that right is threatened by government players, we at the ACLU — as the premier defender of free speech in America — take it personally. And so did Wayne E. Weatherbee, owner of Bee’s Auto in downtown Clermont, Fla.
In October 2009, Weatherbee erected 12 signs on his business property in political protest against the City of Clermont, which he claims selectively enforced its laws against him and his business, and has falsely arrested him. One of the signs pleads: “ACLU WHERE ARE YOU” Well, here we are. On Tuesday, February 2, the City began imposing a $75/day fine on Bee’s Auto until the signs are removed or Weatherbee obtains a permit. This series of actions crossed the line and unacceptably infringed on Weatherbee’s right to free expression, so yesterday, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida filed a federal lawsuit (PDF) against the City of Clermont on behalf of the local businessman, charging that city officials have unconstitutionally targeted Weatherbee, attempting to suppress his free speech. The lawsuit also charges that the city’s signage code is unconstitutional and should be overturned. So what’s really at stake here? Aren’t these signs just a bunch of eyesores in historic downtown Clermont? Political speech doesn’t have to be pretty to be protected. And when a city regulates political speech based on its content, it is a violation of the First Amendment. Clermont’s code, for instance, would allow, without a permit, a sign that urges viewers to ‘Vote for Crist for Senate,’ but would require a permit for one that reads ‘Impeach Gov. Crist.’ That’s viewpoint discrimination, and it’s unconstitutional. (Notably, holiday decorations are exempt from Clermont’s permitting process and restrictions on size or number. That means that in Clermont, there would be greater protection of a warren of giant inflatable Easter Bunnies than of Weatherbee’s political speech. Not that there’s anything wrong with giant inflatable Easter bunnies, but...) This isn’t the first time the city has violated the First Amendment. In 2007, the ACLU sent a letter to the city on behalf of a resident who was cited under the code for posting a “Vote for Ron Paul” sign in his yard. The city wanted to charge residents a permit fee for posting political signs; although they backed down in 2007, they have failed to embrace the principle that political speech is protected speech. Derek B. Brett, ACLU cooperating attorney in Orlando and Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Central Florida, is leading the ACLU’s efforts in the lawsuit. Brett says: “The city’s actions are abusive. Since at least 2007, the City of Clermont has been on notice that the code violates the First Amendment’s protection of political speech.” So here we are again. This time, we are aiming not only to prevent the city from further levying fines or collecting past fines placed on Weatherbee and Bee’s Auto, but also to strike down the Clermont’s unconstitutional signage ordinance. Media cameras and reporters descended upon this small central Florida town this week to see the Clermont Sign War play out, and residents poured out to support the ACLU’s efforts, saying “Thank God for the ACLU” and even taking up a collection of donations for the ACLU’s work. So, we march on with their support and your help, battling bad government policies one small town at a time.
Anti-Islam T-Shirt Ban Prompts ACLU LawsuitIslam is of the Devil. That is the T-shirt slogan that instigated a hailstorm of debate in Gainesville, Fla., about where to draw the line between offensive speech and speech that is intended to incite harm or violence. The T-shirts in question were worn to school by students of varying ages from elementary to high school. Initially, students — all members of the Dove World Outreach Center, a Christian church — went to school wearing shirts with “Jesus answered ‘I am the way and the truth and the life; no one goes to the Father except through me’” and “I stand with Dove World Outreach Center” on the front and “Islam is of the Devil” on the back. School administrators responded by banning the shirts, and in some cases, suspending the students. The ACLU of Florida filed a federal lawsuit against the Alachua County School District charging that school administrators unlawfully censored students’ free speech for wearing T-shirts promoting their religious beliefs about Christianity and Islam in school and at school events earlier this school year. While school officials have a responsibility to both protect students and ensure that all students are able to pursue their education free of disruption, harassment, discrimination and intimidation, they failed here by banning free speech. Regardless of the offensive nature of the message on the shirts, it is protected speech. The Alachua County School Board’s policy allowing school officials to ban messages that are “offensive to others” is very subjective, and fails to hold officials to clear standards setting out what speech can be banned. No disruption ever occurred in the school to warrant the T-shirt ban. Indeed, the school board eventually banned the T-shirts even with the back covered so that the message could not be seen because everybody would know what was underneath! Furthermore, in an event that made it clear school officials were willing to go to any length to ban the shirts, administrators instructed police to eject the students and their parents from school property during an Alachua County high school football game in October. The students and their parents wore three different versions of the shirts to the game and did not disrupt the game or engage in disruptive behavior with other fans. They were still removed from the premises because school officials found the message offensive. In an attempt to prevent litigation, the ACLU submitted 27 different slogans that the students wanted to wear and asked the district which would be banned — the district refused to offer any guidance. The students have not worn the shirts to school since the October incident for fear of disciplinary action by the school officials. The ACLU, which has a rich history of defending religious freedom, is seeking a court order so that the students can begin wearing the shirts to express their religious viewpoint. The views of these students may be in the minority, but that is precisely why they need protection: so their views are not trampled by the majority. Free speech for one; free speech for all. A recent Independent Alligator editorial summed it up well: Were it not for the freedom of the press and other freedoms we enjoy as Americans, we might not have the opportunity to share views about this church or other contentious issues.
Gay-Straight Alliance OK'd by Federal JudgeA month ago, almost to the day, the ACLU of Florida filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of students at Yulee High School in northeast Florida, demanding that the school allow the students to form a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) and meet on campus — just as other clubs, such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, do. Yesterday, less than a week after oral arguments were heard by U.S. District Judge Henry Lee Adams, Jr. in Jacksonville, Florida, he issued a preliminary injunction requiring the school to follow the law and give the students equal access.
The GSA's mission: help curb bullying and harassment against LGBT students and to discuss harassment and discrimination. Bullying of LGBT students in Nassau County Schools is a serious problem according to ACLU plaintiffs Hannah Page and Jacob Brock, who are gay. They reported that students have threatened to beat them up based on their sexual orientation, and both are routinely called derogatory names at the school. Their sole goal in creating the Yulee H.S. GSA is to open a dialogue with students and administrators to openly discuss tolerance and advocate for an end to bullying, harassment, and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender ("LGBT") students. It became just how clear just such a club is needed when they were told "no" by school officials. Hannah said that they "just want the club so that straight and gay kids can get together to talk about the harassment and discrimination against gay kids in an open environment." Yulee High School officials told the students that their club was not welcome unless they changed the name and removed the word "gay." This wasn't the first time students had been denied access though. School administrators denied a similar club at Yulee Middle School in the 2007-2008 school year. But this time the students weren't going to back down — they called the ACLU. As part of his ruling, the judge cited an earlier ACLU of Florida case, Gonzalez v. Sch. Bd. Of Okeechobee Co., where the court rejected the school board's argument that such a club would interfere with "discipline in the operation of the school," noting that the "Defendant's position is not well founded and Plaintiffs have established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits." Beyond allowing the club to meet on campus, the school cannot force the club to change its name, as the principal had previously demanded in reciprocation for club recognition. The school is also prohibited from interfering with the club's goals of advocating "for tolerance, respect and equality of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people," and forbids any retaliation by the school. All in all — a great day for LGBT students' rights!
ACLU reúne a madre inmigrante con su familia después de ser detenida sin justificación alguna(Click here to read this blog post in English.) Cuando la hermana de Rita “Fany” Cote marco al 911 para reportar abuso físico de su novio, ella pensó que la policía le ayudaría a ella, pero nunca imaginó que pasaría después. Los oficiales de policía de Taveres, Florida llegaron y en vez de prender al sospechoso, exigieron la prueba de residencia legal de Fany, que servía como intérprete de su hermana. ¿Parece inverosímil? Es exactamente lo qué sucedió a Fany, que sólo tiene 23 años. La hermana de Rita tenía contusiones en su cuello e hizo varias súplicas a los oficiales para presionar sobre cargos en contra de su novio. Los oficiales de Tavares rechazaron sacar al abusador del hogar y no siguieron los procedimientos requeridos por el estatuto de la Florida para asistir a víctimas de la violencia en el hogar. En su lugar, asumieron el papel de las autoridades federales de inmigración y arrestaron a Fany. Los oficiales de policía la llevaron lejos de su familia sobre una orden de deportación excepcional mientras que su familia la veían desde la ventana de la sala. En el 2000 cuando ella solo tenía 15 años fue traída por sus padres desde Honduras sin documentos. Su esposo y sus 3 pequeños hijos de 7, 4 y 2 años son ciudadanos americanos. Fany, quien no tenía cómo probar prueba de residencia legal fue arrestada por oficiales de la policía mientras que no mencionaron el abuso doméstico incluso en el informe de la policía. La policía no hizo caso de la llamada de violencia en el hogar la cual ella requería, y fue arrestada sin ningún tipo de cargo, usurpando las funciones propias de autoridades de inmigración federal deteniéndola después en la cárcel local, sin ninguna autorización. La Union Americana de Libertades Civiles de la Florida (ACLU) empezó a estar implicada en el caso polémico después de enterar de la manera ilegal de la cual Cote fue arrestada y detenida. La policía local había estado sosteniendo ilegalmente a Fany sin causa alguna por una semana cuando ACLU archivó un decreto judicial de las habeas corpus en la corte federal, exigiendo su libertad. Dentro de las horas de tensión, los agentes de inmigración y de aduanas fueron llamados para trasladarla de inmediato a Orlando, y después a las instalaciones de detención del condado de Broward donde la detuvieron otra semana más sin tener comunicación y acceso con su familia. Cada uno implicado en el caso fue aliviado cuando por fin Fany Cote fue liberada y regresó con su familia para que su abogado de inmigración, John Barry, puede probar a las cortes por qué ella debe permanecer con su marido y sus tres hijos, todos ciudadanos americanos. “Este es un caso importante y una gran victoria. Es una decisión de discreción por parte de [funcionarios de la inmigración]," comentó Barry. "Apreciamos el lado humano que demostraron a una madre de tres hijos pequeños junto con su esposo.” Tags: en espanol
ACLU Helps Reunite Immigrant Mother with Family After Unlawful Detention(Haz click aquí para la versión en español.) When 23-year-old Rita “Fany” Cote’s sister dialed 911 to report physical abuse by her boyfriend, she thought the police would help her — never did she imagine what would happen next. Tavares, Fla., police officers arrived and instead of apprehending the alleged suspect, they demanded proof of residency from Fany, who was serving as her sister’s interpreter. Seem unlikely? It is exactly what happened. Cote's sister, the complaining witness, had bruises on her neck and made several pleas to press charges against her boyfriend. Tavares officers refused to remove the assailant from the home and did not follow the procedures required by Florida Statute for assisting victims of domestic violence. Instead, they assumed the role of federal immigration authorities and arrested Fany Cote. Police officers ripped her away from her family over an outstanding deportation order as they watched from a living room window. In 2000, when she was only 15, Fany's parents brought her to Florida from Honduras without documentation. Her husband and their three small children, ages 7, 4, and 2, are all U.S. citizens. Fany, who was unable to provide proof of residency, was arrested by police officers while the alleged assailant was not even mentioned in the police report. The police ignored a domestic violence call to which they were responding, and arrested Cote without any charges, usurping federal immigration officers’ authority, and then detained her in the local jail, without a warrant. The ACLU of Florida became involved in the controversial case after learning of the illegal manner in which Cote was arrested and detained. Local police had been unlawfully holding Fany without cause for a week when the ACLU of Florida filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus in federal court, demanding her release. Within hours of the filing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were called in to take her away, and she was transferred to the Orlando, then Broward County detention facilities where she was detained for another week without access to her family. Everyone involved was relieved yesterday when Fany Cote was released to her family so her immigration attorney, John Barry, can prove to the courts why she should be able to stay with her husband and three young children, all of whom are U.S. citizens. "This is actually a big deal. It's a victory and it's a discretionary decision on the part of [immigration officials]," Barry said. "We appreciated the humanity that they showed to a mother of three to reunite her with the children and her husband." Check out a few photos from a news conference organized by the ACLU in Orlando here.
Despite Recent Progress, Anti-Gay Discrimination Rages on in Florida Public SchoolsLast fall Yulee High School administrators denied recognition to a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) and denied them use of school facilities, although other student clubs were given access. This followed a similar discriminatory act when Yulee Middle School denied the same student access to school facilities in the 2007-08 school year for a GSA. So, this week, the ACLU of Florida’s LGBT Advocacy Project sued the School District of Nassau County (near Jacksonville) alleging that the school violated the students’ First Amendment and federal Equal Access Act rights. Bullying and anti-gay harassment are a severe problem in Nassau County schools, according to students there. They are regularly harassed by fellow students, called names and physically threatened. It’s a logical conclusion to make that if the school administrators were more tolerant and led by example that the students would follow that behavior and not discriminate against fellow classmates. But that’s not the message the superintendent wanted to send when he denied the club access. “We just want the club so that straight and gay kids can get together to talk about harassment and discrimination against gay kids in an open environment. The school is discriminating against us and that’s exactly the kind of thing we want to talk about and prevent,” said Hannah Page, ACLU plaintiff and student at Yulee High School. GSAs are student organizations made up of straight and gay students who wish to advocate for an end to bullying, harassment, and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) students. Who could be against that? There are over 4,000 GSAs in the U.S., according to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), including several in the greater Jacksonville area. This is all on the heels of a lawsuit won last year through a team effort by the ACLU of Florida’s LGBT Advocacy Project and the national ACLU LGBT Project. We triumphed in a lawsuit against Okeechobee High School, where a GSA was prohibited from being recognized like other extra-curricular clubs. The federal judge ruled that the public school must provide for the well-being of gay students and cannot discriminate against the GSA. The Okeechobee County School Board paid $326,000.00 in attorneys’ fees for refusing to follow the law in that case. Many news outlets have already covered the filing of the Nassau County lawsuit, including the Associated Press, Florida Times-Union, WJXT-TV, and the Orlando Sentinel. We’ll keep you updated as the case progresses.
Prohibición de Libros es InconstitucionalProhibir libros en bibliotecas de escuelas públicas va en contra de uno de las principales enmiendas de la constitución, la que protege la libertad de expresión. En 2006 la junta escolar del condado de Miami-Dade tomó la decisión de prohibir un libro de las bibliotecas escolares cuando un padre se quejó del libro. La Unión de Libertades Civiles de Florida (ACLU) había advertido el distrito que la prohibición de libros es inconstitucional y si lo hacen, ACLU demandaría en corte federal para impedirlos. El libro en cuestión era Vamos a Cuba (A Visit to Cuba en inglés), y es parte de una serie de 24 libros para niños de cinco a siete años que demuestran ciertos aspectos de otros países. Es posible que esta es la primera vez que un libro haya sido prohibido no porque tenía contenido ofensivo, sino por lo que el libro no dice — la realidad dura de la vida en la isla comunista. Otra solución hubiera sido añadir más libros a la biblioteca con diversas opiniones, no prohibir esta serie de libros. La ironía es que prohibir un libro es precisamente lo que harían en una escuela en Cuba, no se supone que tal acción pasaría en un país libre donde valoramos la libertad de expresión. El voto para prohibir el libro contradecía las recomendaciones del superintendente, la abogada de la junta escolar y dos comités de profesores, padres y bibliotecarios, cuya responsabilidad era aconsejar la junta. (Luego el distrito removería todos los libros de la serie de las bibliotecas.) ACLU demandó al distrito en junio del 2006 para proteger uno de los derechos más valorados en los Estado Unidos — la libertad de expresión. Hasta la Asociación de Bibliotecas de la Florida (Florida Library Association) unió con ACLU en el juicio, luchando contra la prohibición de libros por su contenido. La corte decidió que las acciones por la junta escolar fueron inconstitucionales y ordenó que regresaran los libros a las bibliotecas. La junta apeló la decisión con prisa. Esta semana, la corte federal de apelaciones (11th Circuit Court of Appeals) revocó la decisión de una manera con vista limitada. Entendemos el dolor de la comunidad Cubana por lo que han sufrido, pero la lucha para libertad de expresión en Cuba no puede manifestarse como una lucha contra sí en Miami. Si aceptamos que administradores y docentes tienen el derecho de censurar libros por su contenido, estaríamos matando la esencia del "mercado de ideas." La solución constitucional es agregar más libros con desemejantes puntos de vista, no censurar y prohibir libros porque no convienen a las políticas de los administradores. Estamos dispuestos para avanzar el juicio en la corte de apelaciones u otras opciones que incluyen una apelación a la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos. Aprenda más sobre la libertad de expresión en nuestro sitio Web: http://www.aclufl.org/spanish/informes/libertadexpresion.cfm Tags: en espanol
Book Banning is Un-AmericanBook banning flies in the face of one of the bedrock principles of the Bill of Rights — Freedom of Expression — and it is not tolerated in America; except maybe in the chambers of the Miami-Dade School Board. In 2006 the ACLU of Florida began to warn the school district that if they banned the children’s book ¡Vamos a Cuba! and its English equivalent, A Visit to Cuba, a lawsuit would follow. The book is part of a series that shows children ages 5-7 basic facts about other countries, such as the foods they eat, the clothes they wear, and the things they do. In a politically charged vote, the board voted to ban the book against the advice of the district’s superintendent, the school board’s own attorney, as well as two separate committees comprised of educators, parents and librarians. The school board banned the book saying that it doesn’t accurately portray the Castro regime. (Later, the district would yank every book in the 24-book series off the shelves, further making school children the losers in this battle.) This could quite possibly be the first time that a book was banned not for what it did say, rather for what it doesn’t say. And the irony is that banning a book because of its content is exactly the type of action one would expect from a Castro regime — not something that would happen here. In June 2006, the ACLU of Florida filed suit against the school district, demanding that the books be returned to the shelves. Librarians and experts testified that the book is age appropriate and that it should in fact remain on the shelves. The Florida Library Association even filed an amicus brief in the case. The ACLU prevailed in the federal district court and the school district quickly appealed – throwing more taxpayers’ money at the problem they themselves had created. On Thursday, the 11th Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, a decision the ACLU says was short-sighted. If school administrators are given license to ban books they don’t like from the public libraries, then we are one step closer to the death of the marketplace of ideas and our libraries will be filled not with books but with empty shelves. The American way, the constitutional way, would be to buy more books with different viewpoints and add them — not scrub the shelves of every book that doesn’t fit a particular person’s political views. Censorship is censorship, period. The ACLU of Florida and cooperating counsel are looking at the decision and will be moving forward to protect free speech in this, our free country. Stay tuned! |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
