free speech – RI Future

September 29, 2015September 29, 2015

Celebrate banned books this week with the ACLU

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The freedom to read is the freedom to learn, to imagine, to challenge your own beliefs, and to see the world from a new point of view. Too often, that freedom is challenged by individuals who would censor important and challenging books rather than embrace them.

As part of our ongoing work to fight against censorship in all its forms, the ACLU of Rhode Island is celebrating the freedom to read at our annual Banned Books Week Celebration on October 5.

Join us, the East Providence Public Library, and Living Literature for dramatic readings of Young Adult books that have been banned or challenged over the years.

Living Literature, a collective of Rhode Island-based artists and educators who teach literature through a unique and imaginative process, has created a 25-minute readers theater program exploring the question: “Why are Young Adult books challenged more frequently than any other type of book?”

Hear them perform selections from Harper Lee, Roald Dahl, Sherman Alexie, Lois Lowry, and Shel Silverstein and see if your favorite childhood book was ever banned or censored.

Banned Books Celebration: Young Adult Authors

October 5, 2015 at 6:30 PM

East Providence Public Library

41 Grove Ave., East Providence, RI 02914

This event is free and open to all. Light refreshments will be served.

July 15, 2015July 15, 2015

ACLU sues Providence for violating street musician’s free speech rights

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.

December 9, 2014December 9, 2014

ACLU sues Providence Police again for violating protesters’ free speech rights

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The recent protests in Providence and around the country should remind us all of the importance of our free speech rights and the power a community can have when it makes its collective voice heard. Taking to a public square to express one’s political opinion is a longstanding tradition in American society and is a fundamental right that must be respected. We have seen, however, that law enforcement officers at times unnecessarily restrict protests in ways that only serve to diminish protesters’ ability to share their message. As large-scale protests continue across the country, the ACLU of Rhode Island is again taking action against the Providence Police Department for violating the First Amendment rights of protesters.

Yesterday, the ACLU of Rhode Island filed a federal lawsuit against the Providence Police Department for violating the “clearly established” free speech rights of two protesters last year at a fundraiser in Roger Williams Park for then-Gubernatorial candidate, and now Governor-elect, Gina Raimondo. The suit alleges that the police department’s actions amounted to a “willful” violation of the “constitutionally protected right of people to peaceably assemble and demonstrate in public parks,” and seeks various court-imposed remedies, including monetary damages. The suit notes that only six months earlier in another ACLU case, a federal judge condemned the Providence police department’s practice of “clearing vast public spaces” of people engaged in free speech activity without legal cause.

The lawsuit, filed by ACLU volunteer attorney Richard A. Sinapi on behalf of Shannah Kurland and Gladys Gould, stems from police actions outside a September 26, 2013 fundraiser for then-candidate Raimondo . Over 200 people, including Kurland and Gould, gathered in the park outside the Casino with signs to protest Raimondo’s controversial pension reform activities. During the course of the protest, the lawsuit claims, the two plaintiffs (along with the other demonstrators) were ordered by Providence police to move farther and farther away from the Casino, making it much more difficult for them to have their message seen and heard by individuals attending the event.

Separately, Kurland is legal counsel to five local Ferguson activists charged with trespassing for shutting down Interstate 95.

Even though she at no time obstructed traffic or foot movement, Gould was ordered to move farther away from the Casino three times. As a result, she was forced from protesting where she started, on a sidewalk within 50 feet of the Casino entrance, to an area that was about 285 feet away and also distant from the parking lot entrance. Gould reluctantly moved each time, but when Kurland refused to move to the farthest location, she was arrested for disorderly conduct, purportedly for obstructing traffic, even though she remained on the grass island at all times.

The lawsuit notes that parks and sidewalks “are quintessential public forums, and the Supreme Court has consistently affirmed the right of demonstrators to use them,” and that a claim of “obstruction of traffic” is “not a talisman that can be employed to turn bedrock First Amendment protections to dust.” The suit further states that since the plaintiffs “were at all times either peaceably protesting on the sidewalk or the island and in no way interfering with the flow of pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk or motor vehicle traffic in the street or ingress to and egress from the Casino, there was no legitimate governmental interest in relocating their protest on three different occasions.”

Pointing to the favorable court decision the ACLU had obtained only months earlier on behalf of a Providence resident, Judith Reilly, who had been barred by police from leafleting outside a venue where then-Mayor David Cicilline was speaking, the suit claims that Providence police officials should have been fully aware of the unconstitutional nature of their actions at the Casino. The City paid $75,000 last year to settle the Reilly case.

We’re asking the court to, among other remedies, declare the actions of the police a violation of Kurland and Gould’s First Amendment rights, require proper training and instruction of police on the First Amendment rights of demonstrators, rule that Kurland’s arrest violated her right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and award compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

There is no excuse for the actions police officers took at this event, whose only purpose was to diminish the ability of protesters to get their message across. The time has long since passed for the Providence police to act as if the First Amendment were just a suggestion.

Plaintiff Kurland said: “It’s a shame that the City of Providence still doesn’t respect the Constitution. I sure hope it doesn’t take another arrest for them to learn that the First Amendment applies here too. If it does, I’m willing to oblige.”

ACLU attorney Sinapi added: “I sincerely hope and trust that, unlike his predecessors, Mayor-Elect Elorza, who has taught law school students about constitutional rights, will acknowledge and appreciate the importance of the free speech rights violated in this case, and will act with all deliberate speed to provide relief for the injuries committed and to prevent such violations from occurring in the future. Failure of City elected leaders to take appropriate and decisive action to remedy and prevent such conduct is only going to continue to subject the City to repeated lawsuits, each of which will inevitably cost the City tens of thousands of dollars.”

Time will tell whether the new administration will take steps to resolve this matter quickly or instead seek to defend the actions of its officers in squelching free speech.

October 9, 2014October 9, 2014

Judge: RI’s ban on anonymous political literature is unconstitutional

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.

May 27, 2014

When does the right to petition become lobbying?

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Candidate for Democratic nominee for Secretary of State Guillaume de Ramel in The Providence Journal 5/26/14 (emphasis added):

Rhode Island’s special distinction for “limited activity” lobbyists has created A gray area in the law prone to causing confusion or even unintentional noncompliance. Anyone who lobbies state government should be registered with the secretary of state’s office, regardless of how little he or she does so.

Article I, Section 21 of the Rhode Island State Constitution (emphasis added):

Section 21. Right to assembly — Redress of grievances — Freedom of speech. — The citizens have a right in a peaceable manner to assembly for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government, for redress of grievances, or for other purposes, by petition, address, or remonstrance. No law abridging the freedom of speech shall be enacted.

Plenty of organizations make calls to action to legislators’ constituents, asking them to write or call or meet with their representatives to request action on a specific issue. By definition, that’s lobbying. Change.org has even made it as simple as simply putting your name, email, and address in a form and hitting “submit” – no more action is required from the person doing the lobbying. So, are these people supposed to register as lobbyists?

To be fair to de Ramel, even the current Secretary of State’s “Am I a Lobbyist” page is pretty unclear on such people – which of the five exemptions do they fall under? Some will probably argue that there’s a precedent for dealing with those people, and in practice they’re never going to be effected by lobbying laws. But if such a grey area exists (in practice), that highlights the problems with the current system; and what de Ramel’s proposing.

The simpler and more elegant solution that I’ve heard proposed is to simply required state officials to keep lists of everyone they meet with or are contacted by and make those public. That would probably inconvenience officials to some extent (which is probably why such a proposal has zero chance of passing the legislature), but transparency is kind of inconvenient, isn’t it? And it’s probably a bit better than hunting down constituents for requesting their legislator vote this way or that on a gun control bill.

April 15, 2014April 15, 2014

ACLU sues Smithfield for unconstitutional ban on anonymous political speech

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The ACLU of Rhode Island today filed a federal lawsuit to prevent the Smithfield Police Department from continuing to enforce an overly broad state law that makes it a crime to circulate anonymous political literature, including unsigned newspaper editorials. The statute, which carries a potential one-year prison sentence, unconstitutionally 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 has already ruled 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, the Rhode Island law has never been formally repealed, and last year the Smithfield Police Department arrested a political consultant for purportedly violating it. 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.

The lawsuit, filed by ACLU of RI volunteer attorney Mark W. Freel, argues that statements like those, “despite clear rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, and despite positions taken by the State and the Attorney General in other cases, evidence[] a complete disregard for the rights of individuals … who wish to exercise their constitutionally protected right to engage in anonymous pamphleteering and electioneering on matters of public concern.” The suit, which does not challenge other more narrowly tailored disclosure requirements contained in campaign finance laws, seeks a court order declaring the statute unconstitutional, an injunction against any further enforcement of it by the town, and an award of attorney’s fees.

The plaintiff in the suit, Smithfield resident John Blakeslee, has disseminated written political materials over the years that could be deemed to violate the statute’s requirements. He said today: “Sometimes those expressing a minority opinion don’t feel safe giving their name and address, and voicing an unpopular point of view requires anonymity. As a gay rights activist, I participated in many activities in the 80’s and 90’s where identifying myself wasn’t an option; there was a real threat of violence and discrimination from police, employers, neighbors and others. A major reason for the First Amendment’s protection of free speech, including anonymous speech, is to give a voice to the oppressed. Nobody should have to worry about going to prison for exercising that right.”

ACLU attorney Freel added: “There is a long-standing tradition in this country’s legal and political history in favor of the right to comment anonymously on elections and candidates. The U.S. Supreme Court has clearly recognized that right, and has held that it is firmly embodied in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Town of Smithfield needs to recognize and respect that right, and any Rhode Island statute that is inconsistent with it should be struck down as unconstitutional.”

ACLU of RI executive Steven Brown noted: “Laws like this can have a chilling effect on free speech, and the town’s unwillingness to acknowledge this is deeply troubling. If Smithfield police want to enforce the law, they should start with the highest law of the land – the Constitution.”

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 lawsuit argues that the statute “is not narrowly tailored to achieve whatever constitutionally legitimate interests the state may have.”