PHILADELPHIA – The ACLU is appealing a court ruling that allows a county transit system to ban ads from an atheist group. The County of Lackawanna Transit System refused to allow the Northeast Pennsylvania Freethought Society to place ads on its vehicles that contained the word "atheist" and the group's website. The transit system said the ads were too controversial.

According to ACLU staff attorney Brian Hauss, when a government entity such as a transit authority opens up a space for public speech, the First Amendment puts strict limits on its ability to censor that speech.

"When the government has the power to censor speech simply because it's too controversial, history has shown time and again that the government will inevitably use that power for the benefit of people with political connections and the powerful, and to the detriment of everybody else," he says.

The Federal District Court upheld the ban, saying the vehicles are a "limited public forum," allowing for more discretion, and because the ban was not based on the viewpoint of the ads.

But Hauss disagrees with that determination. He points out that when the government is given wide discretion to prohibit speech it deems controversial, no one knows what the factors are that go into that determination.

"If the government concluded, for example, that an ad supporting Black Lives Matter was hate speech, it would be empowered to suppress that advertisement and its discretion would be very hard to overrule," he explains.

He notes that in a similar case, a transit system in the nation's capital banned an ad placed by the ACLU that simply contained the text of the First Amendment.

And Hauss points out that official censorship leads to the stifling of debate and the public's right to know, as has happened in Philadelphia.

"The transit system there refused to run an ad about mortgage discrimination," notes Hauss. "It was an informational ad explaining that there was systemic mortgage discrimination in a lot of housing in Pennsylvania."

The ACLU is appealing the Lackawanna ruling to the Federal Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.


get more stories like this via email

Civic groups are taking action against what they call voter suppression tactics in the South.

This week Alabama Values, Southern Leadership for Voter Engagement (SOLVE), and Groundwork Project joined forces with other organizations to discuss recent legislation such as Alabama House Bill 209.

The bill's provisions would forbid individuals from aiding in the distribution, ordering, requesting, collecting, obtaining, or delivering of an absentee ballot application or absentee ballot on behalf of someone else.

During the briefing, Dillion Nettles - policy and advocacy director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama - said the bill also criminalizes civic organizations and individuals wanting to assist others in exercising their right to vote by limiting who can help get the ballots or applications.

"But that is a very narrow group of individuals," said Nettles. "You essentially have to be someone who works as an election official or works in the absentee election managers office, you have to be a next of kin of that individual, or someone who lives with them. "

If it passes, HB 209 would establish felony charges for people who break the law.

According to Kiana Jackson - research and coalition organizing manager at New Disabled South - this bill not only hinders organizations that facilitate voting accessibility, but also creates greater hurdles for older adults and individuals with disabilities.

"We know that about 7.5% of disabled people are not able to have a voter ID, compared to able bodied people at 4%," said Jackson. "So there are huge gaps in even how we vote but then particularly when we talk about accessibility and you're putting more and more barriers in place."

HB 209 is through the House and awaits action by the State Governmental Affairs Committee.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.




get more stories like this via email

On Wednesday, Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo vetoed a trio of bills that sought to reduce gun violence.

Assembly Bill 354 would have cracked down on so-called "ghost gun" sale loopholes and prohibited guns at polling places. AB 355 would have raised the legal age to possess assault weapons from 18 to 21.

And SB 171 would have prohibited anyone convicted of a hate crime from owning, purchasing or possessing a firearm for 10 years.

Executive Director of Battle Born Progress Annette Magnus said she's "never been so disappointed about three bills" in her life.

At a news conference, Magnus said gun owners like herself - and the majority of Nevadans - support what she called "commonsense measures."

"We are here now to express our disappointment and disgust for the fact that he was willing and able to sign these measures into law to protect Nevadans, the day after yet another shooting that happened in New Mexico," said Magnus, "and he vetoed them as the first bills of session."

Magnus called Lombardo's action a "slap in the face."

In a statement, the governor said he won't support "legislation that infringes on the constitutional rights of Nevadans." He said he saw the bills as "in direct conflict with legal precedent and established constitutional protections."

Assembly Majority Leader Sandra Jauregui - D-Las Vegas - was among supporters of the bills, and is a survivor of the October 2017 shooting spree in Las Vegas that took 58 lives and left hundreds injured.

Jauregui said after Lombardo spent time consoling the families of that tragedy, she expected him - in her words - "to have the basic empathy to realize his responsibility to prevent future mass shootings and gun violence tragedies."

"It is disappointing for the governor to reject these commonsense measures that would save lives," said Jauregui. "I desperately wish the governor would put the safety of Nevadans ahead of partisan politics."

Jauregui added that rejecting the bills puts the governor "out of touch with everyday Nevadans."

Participants at the news conference said they'll continue to work for gun-violence prevention in the state.

Civil rights groups are forging connections to fight the rising tide of hate crimes.

In a briefing from the Act Against Hate Alliance Wednesday, civil rights leaders explained efforts to enlist regular people, advocacy groups, governments and corporations in the fight against hate.

Laura E. Ellsworth, a partner at the Jones Day law firm, organizes the annual Eradicate Hate Global Summit in Pittsburgh, the site of the 2018 massacre at the Tree of Life Synagogue.

"Whether it be against LGBT people or immigrants in El Paso or Jews again in Poway or Sikhs in Oak Creek or Asians throughout California, again and again and again we see this identity-based violence," Ellsworth observed.

Five months ago, California was scarred by a mass shooting that killed 11 Asian-Americans during the Lunar New Year celebration at two dance halls in Monterey Park. A year ago, a white supremacist gunman targeted Black shoppers, killing 10 at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York.

Recently Gov. Gavin Newsom announced two new ways to report hate speech and hate crimes, by logging on to the website CAvsHate.org or calling 833-8-NO-HATE.

Tamás Berecz, general manager of the International Network Against Cyber Hate in the Netherlands, said his organization responds to complaints of online hate speech and manages a database to monitor trends in cyber hate.

"Hate speech is not always followed by hate crimes, but hate crimes are very, very often or almost always preceded by hate speech," Berecz explained.

May is Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month.

Dennis Santiago, chief operating officer of the National Diversity Coalition based in Los Angeles, said his organization tries to fight the myth of the Pacific Rim cultures as a monolith.

"Each one of them has beachhead cultures in the United States," Santiago noted. "And every single one of them has different characteristics in terms of their economic integration, their cultural isolation, even from each other."

The 2021 California Hate Crime Report found hate crimes increased more than 32% in the Golden State between 2020 and 2021. Anti-Asian hate crime events increased dramatically, rising 177.5% during the same time period.


get more stories like this via email