Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/load.php on line 651
Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/theme.php on line 2241
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387 first amendment – RI Future Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Steve Brown, the executive director of the Rhode Island ACLU has issued a statement regarding Providence City Councillor Kevin Jackson’s lawsuit against the two people, Patricia Kammerer and Karina Holyoak Wood, who have organized a recall effort and petition against him.
Jackson’s lawsuit also names the City of Providence and the Providence Board of Canvassers.
“The ACLU is not familiar enough with the mechanics of the City’s recall mechanism to comment on the specifics of the allegations contained in Councilor Jackson’s complaint,” said Brown in the RI ACLU statement, “We do agree that certain due process standards are essential before subjecting elected officials to the burdens imposed in having to defend themselves against removal from an elected position they obtained through a democratic process.
“At the same time, we are deeply troubled that, in addition to suing City officials and the Board of Canvassers, which is responsible for overseeing the recall petition process, the lawsuit names as defendants the two private individuals who have been involved in mounting this recall campaign. Their involvement in the suit is completely unnecessary in order for a court to address any legitimate due process concerns raised by the petition process. Thus, the inclusion of these two individuals as defendants strikes us a classic SLAPP suit – an attempt to silence private citizens for seeking to exercise their First Amendment right to petition government.
“As Rhode Island’s SLAPP suit statute notes, ‘full participation by persons and organizations and robust discussion of issues of public concern before the legislative, judicial, and administrative bodies and in other public fora are essential to the democratic process.’ These two Providence residents should not be forced to defend themselves in a court of law for exercising petition rights granted them by the City Charter. The ACLU urges Councilor Jackson to amend his complaint and remove these two private citizens as defendants.”
In a statement the Kammerer and Holyoak Wood called Jackson’s lawsuit “an obvious delaying tactic.” Holyoak Wood was the campaign manager of Marcus Mitchell, who ran an unsuccessful write-in campaign against Jackson two years ago.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Addressing a brazen attempt to chill freedom of speech, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island today announced it has agreed to provide legal representation to the Warwick Post and the Warwick Beacon, both of which have been threatened with a defamation suit if they write stories about the contents of a public document.
The threat, by the Warwick School Department’s outgoing director of human resources Rosemary Healey, was made in response to the imminent release of a report prepared for the school committee, examining how Healey and other school administrators handled accusations of sexual misconduct made against a junior high school science teacher. The Attorney General recently ruled that the report, with certain information redacted, was a public record.
Even though Healey’s attorney, Jeffrey Sowa, acknowledged that Healey had not “been given the opportunity to substantively review the report,” he called the report “neither fair nor impartial” and “defamatory and malicious” in his letters to the publishers of the Post, a news website, and the Beacon. While further acknowledging that the Attorney General had ruled the document a public record, Sowa wrote that the publishers would “not be insulated from liability” for releasing information about the report, and that they should “cease and desist from publishing any matters relating to” Healey.
ACLU volunteer attorneys Neal McNamara and William Wynne from the law firm of Nixon Peabody have agreed to defend the newspapers if Healey follows through on her threat of legal action. Both papers are prepared to publicize the report, which is expected to be released sometime later today.
Warwick Post publisher and editor Robert Borkowski said today: “I’ve often been threatened with frivolous lawsuits aimed at scaring me away from reporting on public matters and records in 20 years of community journalism. This was the first time it directly threatened a business I owned, though, and it rattled me. But Attorney Sowa, who must surely be aware of First Amendment protections regarding reporting on public officials and documents, sought to bully Mr. Howell and me into walking away from our responsibility to give the parents of Warwick the information they need to assess the deeds of the people they entrust their children to each day. So when I thought about that, I was only rattled a little while. Fortunately for Warwick parents, Mr. Howell, and me, the ACLU of Rhode Island has agreed to offer us legal representation if Sowa and his client make good on their threat.”
John Howell, publisher of the Warwick Beacon, added: “Ever since the School Committee completed an investigation of how its administrators handled complaints about a teacher drawing phallic symbols on the arm of a junior high school female student last spring, the Warwick Beacon has sought to get a copy of that report. That request was denied by the committee and later by the city after it used its subpoena powers to get the school report. Fortunately, the Attorney General agrees the report is public. Given that ruling and our belief that the citizens of Warwick have the right to know how their school administrators acted, I intend to publish those findings.”
ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown stated: “A public employee’s threat to sue newspapers for doing their job – informing the public about the contents of a public document on a matter of enormous public interest – attacks the very heart of the freedom of the press. Over twenty years ago, the General Assembly passed a law to protect people from lawsuits that have a chilling effect on speech. As that statute, known as the anti-SLAPP law, points out, ‘full participation by persons and organizations and robust discussion of issues of public concern … are essential to the democratic process.’ The public document at issue here deserves a full airing, and the First Amendment was designed to allow that airing. We are prepared to vigorously defend the Post and the Beacon from this threatened abuse of the legal process.”
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Activists protesting the Clear River Energy Center in Burrillville, Invenergy’s proposed $700 million gas and oil burning energy plant, have been showing up at many of the public speaking events attended by Governor Gina Raimondo and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse over the last few months. Raimondo is on record as fully supporting the power plant, Whitehouse has recently shifted from being for the plant to saying that he has to be neutral.
The protesters have been peaceful and respectful. There have been no efforts towards disrupting events. For the most part protesters silently hold signs declaring their views, only speaking up at the end of the event.
Recently, however, protesters have been excluded from attending these public events and come under increased scrutiny from various law enforcement agencies.
On March 4, Lorraine Savard, a retired public school teacher, went to the Rhode Island State House with her anti-power plant sign, where she expected to be able to hold her sign at the back of the room during the Cherry Blossom Festival, held in the State Room.
“I was allowed into the State Room on the condition that I not wave the sign,” Savard wrote of the incident, “I sat with my sign on the floor next to me. Overstuffed red couch toward the back is where I sat. Sign facing out. It did not take long for the girl to come take my sign and hide it out of sight. I left with my sign.”
Savard told me that “the girl” is the member of the governor’s staff who maintains an office in the State Room at the State House.
In response to an inquiry, Marie Aberger, press secretary for Governor Raimondo, said, “The Governor’s staff did not take a sign away from anyone in the State Room. We are fully supportive of the public’s right to free speech.”
Peter Nightingale
Three days later URI Professor of Physics and occasional RI Future contributor Peter Nightingale attended a NORAD press conference in Quonsett, RI. He stood outside the event with his sign, discussing the proposed power plant with Congresspersons David Cicilline and James Langevin.
Nightingale reports, “Mike Miranda, private owner of NORAD, did get tired with me and my off-topic message. He asked me to leave the event, which he referred to as private. The press was there and my impression was that the public was invited, but I left.”
Nightingale wonders, “how much state and federal money is spent on shuttling our leadership to and from these ‘private’ events.”
The next day, at the Pawtucket Visitor’s Center in downtown Pawtucket, Lorraine Savard found herself unable to enter the building with her sign. “I was not allowed into the press conference this morning. I stood outside with my sign. The Visitors Center is a public place, paid for with federal funds. I’m incensed. I am a pacifist at heart and not assertive enough to have demanded entry. The police came out and asked if it was a peaceful demonstration. I alone was there. How peaceful can it get?”
In this case it was federal law enforcement officers asked Savard to leave the property.
Intrigued by these reports, I accompanied Savard to the State House State Room for the International [Working] Women’s Day Event where Governor Raimondo was going to speak. The woman who uses the State Room as her office did not take Savard’s sign, but did wag a finger and caution her against displaying it. A Capitol Police officer was stationed directly next to Lorraine for the entirety of the event as she stood at the very back of the room.
When the Governor spoke at East Providence High School on March 10, Savard was not allowed on school property. Further, even when she stood off school property, she found herself under scrutiny from two East Providence police officers.
“[I w]as not allowed on the school property,” writes Savard, “The Principal came out to tell me I would be escorted off school grounds if I did not comply. I stood at the end of the drive and was then approached by 2 EP police officers and told not to block the drive. Madam Gov waved at me when her car drove in. There was press there, I took advantage of her interview and the camera when I went back to my car. I lined up the sign to be in line with the camera. As I returned to my car with sign one of the EP police approached. I called to him and said I was leaving.”
Nick Katkevich, Lorraine Savard, Mary Pendergast
Preventing protesters from attending and holding signs at public events is obviously a serious First Amendment issue, but in the cases above, it’s unclear that these events that were open to all or designed to be open to every member of the public. Determining whether a violation of the First Amendment has taken place depends on the facts of each particular incident and on the nature of the forum.
That said, you would hope that in an open and democratic society our leaders would be particularly sensitive to free speech issues and err on the side of allowing non-disruptive, peaceful expressions of critical views and opinions. When the public is disallowed from attending events we become victims of political theater and propaganda. Without true engagement the public will not be in possession of information that an engaged electorate needs.
Governor Raimondo and others, please take note: An informed, engaged electorate is only dangerous to a politician who is more interested in maintaining power than serving the public interest.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
The City of Providence can no longer stop musician Manuel Pombo from performing or soliciting donations on city streets as part of a settlement reached today in a First Amendment lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island.
The ACLU of Rhode Island filed a federal lawsuit in July on behalf of Pombo, a 62-year-old saxophonist, who had been arrested once, and threatened with arrest on numerous other occasions, while playing his saxophone on sidewalks and street corners in Providence. His “permission to perform” license issued by the city also prohibited Pombo from soliciting donations for his performances, and it allowed him to perform solely at the unbridled discretion of police officers. The ACLU argued this violated Pombo’s free speech and due process rights.
As a result of today’s settlement, filed in U.S. District Court, the City of Providence can no longer order Pombo to stop performing on public property or require him to obtain a permit to perform on public property absent violation of any other valid ordinances. The settlement agreement further stipulates that “because soliciting donations is protected speech under the First Amendment,” the City cannot stop Pombo from soliciting or accepting donations for his performances. The City also agreed to pay compensatory damages.
The lawsuit was filed by ACLU of RI volunteer attorneys Shannah Kurland and John W. Dineen.
Kurland said today: “We appreciate that the City was able to work with us to acknowledge Mr. Pombo’s right to make music in public spaces. Let’s hope that going forward municipal government will respect the Constitution without people having to sue our own city.”
Attorney Dineen added: “Ben Franklin, who was a busker in his early days, will be glad to see that the First Amendment still has some life in it, although it takes a street saxophonist and the ACLU to keep it going.”
This is the third lawsuit in five years that the ACLU of Rhode Island has filed against the City of Providence for interfering with the exercise of free speech rights on City public property. Two years ago, a federal judge agreed with the ACLU that Providence police violated the free speech rights of a local resident when she was barred from peacefully leafleting on a public sidewalk in front of a building where then-Mayor David Cicilline was speaking. In 2014, the ACLU sued the Providence Police Department for violating the free speech rights of protesters at a fundraiser in Roger Williams Park for then-Gubernatorial candidate Gina Raimondo. That case is ongoing.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
“It is beyond reproach that the First Amendment only protects sincerely held beliefs that are ‘rooted in religion,’” said Assistant Attorney General Adam J. Sholes, as quoted in the Providence Journal.
Sholes couldn’t be more wrong and his position is particularly troubling given that he practices law in the State of Rhode Island, the place where the first government guaranteeing freedom of conscience was formed.
The case revolves around Devon Letourneau and Robert Vangel, two men at the ACI who are suing the state, alleging that “they are being blocked from practicing their faith” while in prison. The faith they maintain they are being blocked from practicing is the Five-Percent Nation, which many in law enforcement see as little more than a criminal gang.
According to the ProJo, “The state is asking that the suit be dismissed, saying that prison officials acted reasonably and in good faith in their official capacities and that the First Amendment and the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act do not protect ‘cultural activities and beliefs.’ The state emphasizes that Letourneau and Vangel explicitly reject defining [their beliefs] as a religion and instead consider it a culture or way of life.”
While acknowledging that the state may have compelling interests in preventing these men from engaging in the fullness of their religious practice due to concerns about safety, security and rehabilitation, I have to firmly disagree with Assistant Attorney General Sholes. There is no question that the establishment clause of the Constitution, the part that reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” fully applies.
There are many world views, philosophies, life stances or ways of life that are not religious in nature, yet are considered fully equal to religion in terms of conscience and liberty, under the law. Though I confess to not fully understanding the intricacies of Letourneau and Vangel’s beliefs, from what I’ve read they make no less sense than any number of other religions, faiths and beliefs that are routinely accorded First Amendment protections. Further, non-religious belief systems, such as atheism and Humanism, are protected under the First Amendment as surely as Christianity or Judaism.
Thomas Jefferson wrote “that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions.” He further wrote that officers of civil government should “interfere [only] when [religious] principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.” In penning these words, Jefferson set a high bar for the United States, a bar we have not always met in times of crisis or fear.
According to the ProJo, five states have classified the Five-Percent Nation as a gang or a security threat. This determination in no way diminishes the Five-Percent Nation’s status as a protected belief, but, per Jefferson, creates an onus on the government to take extra care when restricting an inmate’s ability to practice their beliefs.
The state’s defense then, should not be that the Letourneau and Vangel’s Five-Percent Nation beliefs are not protected by the Constitution as Assistant Attorney General Sholes seems to maintain, but that the state has made every safe and reasonable effort accommodate the beliefs.
In doing so, we will have protected not just the beliefs of two inmates, but the liberty of conscience of all Rhode Islanders.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island today announced the settlement of a federal lawsuit on behalf of Jason Cook, an ACI inmate who, the suit alleged, was the victim of retaliation by prison officials for publicly criticizing RI Department of Corrections’ (DOC) mail policies and seeking legal assistance from the ACLU. Under the settlement, the DOC, while denying any liability, has agreed to pay a total of $7,500 in damages and attorneys’ fees.
The ACLU of RI filed the suit in 2009 after Cook experienced a pattern of harassment by prison officials after being quoted in the Providence Journalcriticizing a new DOC policy limiting the written materials available to inmates. He was fired from his job in the kitchen, and after the ACLU of RI questioned the mail policy, the suit alleged that correctional officers conducted a search of Cook’s cell that damaged some of his personal property, and then subjected him to various investigations, bookings, discipline, and unwarranted strip searches.
The ACLU argued that this pattern of harassment by corrections officials against Cook violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech “and displayed both deliberate indifference and a reckless disregard of Cook’s constitutional rights.” Prison officials’ alleged misconduct continued even after Cook filed suit. The day after the complaint was served on a number of the defendants, the suit claimed that all of the previously active phone numbers on Cook’s call list, except for his attorneys, were suddenly deactivated.
The suit further claimed that the various disciplinary actions taken against him violated Cook’s due process rights. In 2013, U.S. District Judge William Smith rejected the DOC’s efforts to have the lawsuit dismissed.
ACLU volunteer attorney Shad Miller, from the law firm DeLuca & Weizenbaum, Ltd., said today: “I give Jason a lot of credit for pursuing his claims against individuals and an institution which had tremendous power and control over every activity of his daily life. It took courage to challenge these authorities and to hold them responsible for their allegedly unwarranted and retaliatory acts against him. It also took persistence to see the legal process through to reach a satisfactory resolution because at every step of the way the defendants vigorously denied and disputed the allegations against them.”
Plaintiff Cook stated: “The federal court has righted the wrongs committed against me. I hope that this settlement will send a clear message to the employees of the state prison that just because a person is incarcerated, we are still human beings and have rights.”
The mail policy at issue that Cook initially protested, and that was ultimately withdrawn after the ACLU intervened, barred family members from ordering books or magazine subscriptions for inmates. Instead, inmates could only obtain publications directly from a publisher with their own funds.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
The Rhode Island American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Providence street musician, saying that the city has infringed upon his First Amendment rights. 62-year-old Manuel Pombo has been harassed by Providence Police for playing in a public space on multiple occasions, even though he had a permit to perform.
Pombo said that he has been playing in Providence for over two decades, and it wasn’t until the past few years that he was even concerned about being arrested.
“It was rare to have a policeman tell me to stop,” he said. “Over the last few years, it’s become an every day thing, and I’m constantly worried about if I’m going to get arrested for playing music.”
Pombo has played near the Dunkin Donuts Center as well as the Providence Performing Arts Center for years, but police have continually chased him away from those areas.
“I have permission from the Dunkin Donuts Center director to play on their sidewalk, and after over 15 years at playing at Dunkin Donuts hockey games or concerts, I get positive feedback. Some of the fans have come by and said “You’re part of the hockey experience,” Pombo said. “Recently, at the Dunkin Donuts Center, a policeman was coming out, and he said “Get out of here with that.”
Pombo added that he has not had these troubles in other cities within the state, or in other cities outside of Rhode Island. He has even been harassed on his way home, when he is not playing his saxophone at all.
“I think it’s the individual officer, for whatever reason, doesn’t like what I’m doing,” he said of the harassment, linking it to specific policemen rather than the city’s administration.
“I’m not blanketing the entire police department. There are officers that support me, even tip me,” he said.
Pombo’s troubles don’t end at harassment, though. In July of 2013, he was arrested for playing his saxophone on a public sidewalk and charged with disorderly conduct and refusal to exhibit a peddler’s license. One of Pombo’s lawyers, Shannah Kurland, said that the charges were arbitrary.
“He was originally told he was being arrested for failure to move. One of the charges, that they put initially, was failure to show a license or badge, and then they added in disorderly conduct, which is kind of the charge that they throw out when they don’t have a real reason to arrest somebody,” she said.
The permission to perform license that Pombo has gives the police complete discretion as to who can play and who cannot play- it even says so on the sign he must have with him.
“It’s a no brainer, that that’s not allowed,” Kurland said. “To have that blanket, unbridled discretion.”
“The First Amendment protects the speech we hate, as well as the speech that’s nice,” said Pombo’s second lawyer, John Dineen. “Mr. Pombo doesn’t have to prove that the majority of people like his music or how good he is.”
“We’re hoping that the city will respond to this by immediately agreeing to stop the harassment, while the litigation is pending, rather than being ordered to do so by the court,” Kurland said.
“I think it’s notable that a big municipality like Providence would have so little regard for what are really basic exercises of First Amendment rights,” Steven Brown, the executive director of the RI ACLU said. “These are not complicated, complex First Amendment issues, they’re very fundamental, and it’s somewhat surprising and disappointing that a major municipality would show so little regard for allowing people to exercise their free speech rights in this way.”
Pombo’s lawsuit was filed by the ACLU in the U.S. District Court, and directly challenges the legality of the permission to perform license he must carry. Along with the broad discretion that the license gives the police to prevent him from playing, Pombo is also barred from soliciting money for his performances.
This is the third lawsuit that the ACLU has filed against Providence in the past several years. Two years ago, a federal judge sided with the ACLU and stated that Providence police violated the free speech rights of a Providence woman after barring her from peacefully distributing leaflets on a public sidewalk in front of a building where former Mayor David Cicilline was speaking. They sued the police department again last year for violating the free speech rights of protesters at a fundraiser for Governor Gina Raimondo.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Walt Buteau, of WPRI 12, reports the firefighter, who has not been named “is the focus of an internal investigation into a gesture he made during a flag-burning protest in front of the Providence Public Safety Complex.”
Providence Public Safety Commissioner Steven Pare said police officers working the protest brought the matter to his attention, and the above video confirmed the incident.
“It’s a violation of rules and regulations,” Pare said. “Public safety officers are not allowed to protest or get involved in political activity when they are on duty.” Off duty public safety officials are allowed to express their political opinions, he added.
The firefighter could be reprimanded, Pare said but the action won’t be public because it’s a personnel matter, and he declined to give the man’s name.
“There was no doubt he was showing support,” said Pare. “When he raised his fist in support of the demonstrators, it incited them.”
Pare said he would follow the same procedure if, for example, an on-duty firefighter showed support for a union protesting a Gina Raimondo fundraiser. But he acknowledged that Ferguson protesters penchant for civil disobedience adds an element not present in the other example. “Is it more concerning because of the protests across the country, where we’ve seen some violence and some property damage, perhaps.”
Local 799 President Paul Doughty declined to comment on the issue.
RI ACLU Executive Director Steven Brown sent this statement to RI Future:
Unfortunately, recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have severely cut back on the First Amendment rights of public employees in the workplace. Even so, seeking to punish a firefighter merely for silently expressing support for an anti-racism protest is troubling on a number of levels. After all, the City has taken the legal position that firefighters can be forced to march in a Gay Pride parade against their beliefs. It’s somewhat ironic if city officials believe they can demand that firefighters participate in a demonstration of solidarity for gay rights but then punish a firefighter for quietly demonstrating support for racial justice.
The response to this incident raises other questions. According to news reports, Commissioner Pare indicated that city policy may have been violated because the firefighter should have been “neutral” in a political protest. While we can understand why police officers should generally demonstrate neutrality in a protest in which they are engaged in crowd control, did the police officer seen hugging a young protester in Ferguson engage in conduct that would have violated Providence’s “neutrality” policy? And even if such a policy makes sense for police officers in the middle of a demonstration, why must all other city employees demonstrate “neutrality” as well? At a time of political unrest, is it a violation of “neutrality” for a city employee to publicly salute a flag in response to a flag-burning across town?
Obviously, a government agency can set reasonable limits on what employees can say or do in their official capacities, and we don’t wish to minimize the complicated nature of issues that can sometimes be raised by government employee speech. But the investigation of the firefighter’s silent expression in this instance is problematic and undeserving of any sort of punitive response.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Rhode Islanders no longer need to worry about facing prison for exercising their free speech rights now that an outdated law that banned the distribution of anonymous political literature has been ruled unconstitutional.
Ruling in an ACLU lawsuit, U.S. District Court Judge William Smith on Tuesday struck down a state law that makes it a crime to circulate anonymous political literature, including unsigned newspaper editorials. The ACLU of Rhode Island sued over the legality of the statute earlier this year to halt the Town of Smithfield’s stated plans to enforce it. The statute, which carries a potential one-year prison sentence, bars the distribution of any anonymous political literature that relates to ballot questions or that criticizes a political candidate’s “personal character or political action.”
The U.S. Supreme Court had previously declared an almost identical Ohio statute unconstitutional, and called anonymous pamphleteering “an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent” designed to “protect unpopular individuals from retaliation – and their ideas from suppression – at the hand of an intolerant society.” That 1995 ruling cited a long history of anonymous political literature in this country, including the Federalist Papers.
Despite the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, last year the Smithfield Police Department arrested a political consultant for purportedly violating the state law. The Attorney General’s office later dismissed the charges, citing the Supreme Court case. In January, the ACLU wrote town officials to seek assurances that Smithfield police would no longer enforce the statute. The ACLU received no response; instead, news stories quoted town officials as calling the ACLU request “absolute nonsense” and stating that they intended to continue initiating criminal complaints under the statute.
This prompted the ACLU’s lawsuit, filed by ACLU of RI volunteer attorney Mark W. Freel. In a written filing with the court, the Attorney General’s office essentially agreed with the ACLU and acknowledged the unconstitutionality of the statute.
In a four-page decision, Judge Smith said it was “hard to imagine what the Rhode Island General Assembly was thinking when it passed this law . . . [but it] must be invalidated as a violation of the First Amendment.”
The plaintiff in the suit was Smithfield resident John Blakeslee, who has disseminated written political materials over the years that could be deemed to violate the statute’s requirements.
ACLU attorney Freel said: “There is a long tradition of anonymous pamphleteering on matters of public interest in this country, and that right is embodied in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Today the court struck down a long-standing Rhode Island law that was entirely at odds with that right. It is a victory for free speech and expression.”
In an attempt to mitigate the time and expense of defending the lawsuit, the House had passed a bill this session to repeal the statute, but the bill died in the Senate. As a result of the court decision, the defendants will pay $4,000 in attorneys’ fees in response to the successful challenge to the statute.
Although anonymous literature that criticizes candidates for public office is a criminal offense under the statute, literature that supports or praises a candidate is not. The court’s decision formally makes the statute legally unenforceable.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
The first thing I noticed as I approached the Hilton Providence on Friday evening was the rented U-Haul truck parked conspicuously between the sidewalk where unionizing workers were staging their protest and the main entrance to the hotel.
The truck, placed so as to spare hotel management and guests the sight of underpaid and overworked employees advocating for fair wages and treatment, became a source of amusement and jokes among the protesters. When a gigantic 18-wheeler rumbled by emblazoned with a large “Teamsters” logo, chants of “We’ve got a bigger truck!” began, followed by laughter.
To highlight the abuse of workers rights alleged to take place at the hotel by the workers on the picket line, the protesters held a mock funeral for the United States Constitution. The document had a good run, said the protesters, only to be murdered by the Prociaccianti Group that owns and manages the hotel. Speaking in memory of the Constitution were Adrienne Jones, interviewed here at RI Future last Monday, and Krystle Martin, whose interview will be on this sight shortly, as well as many other workers and Providence Councilperson Carmen Castillo.
Since the unionization effort began, three union leaders have lost their jobs at the Hilton Providence and eight workers have been reprimanded, according to the organizers, so the Prociaccianti Group appears to be playing union busting hardball. Two of the fired workers, the aforementioned Jones and Martin, are single moms, leading some on the picket line to assert that the Hilton is targeting single mothers, who are more vulnerable economically. It’s hard to imagine more deplorable behavior.
Forming a union is an essential human right, and whatever efforts the hotel is undertaking to squelch the union is morally indefensible. The Prociaccianti Group is already bleeding business. The Unitarian Universalist General Assembly is bringing thousands of people to the Providence area this Summer, and they are not staying at the Hilton or the Renaissance (where workers are also batting for their right to unionize) in response to the hotel’s treatment of its workers. More groups are sure to follow.
Meanwhile, local media, including the rapidly declining Providence Journal and local TV news continue to ignore the plight of workers fighting for their rights, leaving coverage of this developing story to the Brown Daily Herald and RI Future. Stories about real human suffering and economic exploitation are beneath their notice, it seems.
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Nick Barbieri, a senior at North Attleboro High School, was given detention for swearing in a tweet. His assistant principal, he said, also threatened to suspend him if he didn’t delete tweets explaining that he had been asked to delete the offending tweet.
But Barbieri already had tens of thousands of followers on Twitter from his job reviewing video games on YouTube. So it wasn’t hard to drum up support. Soon enough the media and the ACLU had caught wind of what promises to be an emerging area of First Amendment rights: what can kids say on the internet and when can they say it.
In Barbieri’s case, he wasn’t at school when he tweeted, so school officials agreed to revoke his punishment. Now, he’s looking for an apology.
“I haven’t received an apology from Miss Todd but I don’t think that’s going to be coming any time soon,” he told me today. “At the same time I respect my principal’s ability to admit when they are wrong and admit when the decision needs to be rescinded.”
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
If a school administrator claimed the right to censor a teacher’s work plan on a regular basis, there would be an outcry over such a blatant attack on academic freedom. In fact, this scenario plays out in our public schools every day. The censorship occurs in the context of Internet access by students, and it should be no more tolerated than it would be for a teacher’s offline lessons.
Every school uses Internet filtering software to bar student access to a wide range of websites. A report the ACLU of RI has just issued demonstrates just how pervasive, flawed and inappropriate the use of that software is. It’s not just that students – and teachers – find themselves barred from accessing. To give just a few examples, the websites of PBS Kids and National Stop Bullying Day, or a video clip of the Nutcracker ballet, or a website on global warming, or sites that include information about “anti-government groups.” That is bad enough.
What is worse is that when a teacher seeks to have one of these websites unblocked so their students can make use of it during a lesson plan, administrators often exercise unbridled discretion in deciding whether to accede to the teacher’s request. The effect of this regime of censorship is to significantly hinder teachers from making full use of the Internet to educate students, and to significantly hamper students from accessing relevant information in the classroom.
The ACLU report recommends a number of actions to address the serious impact that use of these filters has on students and teachers’ First Amendment rights and on their right to access information at school. Once they recognize how problematic the use of this software is, we are sure those concerned about education will demand changes in school policies and help free both students and teachers from the shackles that this privately-created software imposes. I encourage everybody to read our findings and help us take action.
Link to news release and report: http://www.riaclu.org/20130311.htm
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
“It is beyond reproach that the First Amendment only protects sincerely held beliefs that are ‘rooted in religion,’” said Assistant Attorney General Adam J. Sholes, as quoted in the 
The first thing I noticed as I approached the Hilton Providence on Friday evening was the rented U-Haul truck parked conspicuously between the sidewalk where unionizing workers were staging their protest and the main entrance to the hotel.
