President Bush does a lot of scary Big Brother-type things. The warrantless wiretapping comes to mind first, of course, and there's also the pervasive surveillance of your comings and goings.
But just as sneaky, and maybe ever scarier, is Bush and his friends at the Department of Homeland Security and Department of State's attempt to control whose speech you hear. See, they don't want just anyone coming to our fair shores and spouting off against the war, or criticizing American foreign policy. They're trying their hardest to keep these naysayers out of the country. One way they do this is by using a provision of the USA Patriot Act called "ideological exclusion," which lets the administration keep people out, based on their political beliefs. Sometimes they just keep critics out with no explanation or based on vague national security grounds. So far they've kept out artists, academics and politicians who don't agree with the party line.
But it's not those artists and politicians' right to free speech we're concerned about: it's yours. All Americans have the right not just to express their own opinions but to hear the speech of others, even if they don't jibe with the Bush administration's talking points of the day.
That's why today, we filed a new lawsuit on behalf of the American Sociological Association (ASA) and other groups who invited South African scholar Dr. Adam Habib to speak in the U.S. This past August, the ASA invited Adam to speak at their annual meeting. Adam applied for a visa in advance, but it wasn't until the last minute that the State Department told Adam that his visa wouldn't be processed in time for him to attend the meeting. State won't say why they won't let Adam into the country. Could it be the fact that he's spoken out against the Iraq war and other Bush policies? We don't know, and State isn't talking. and what he hopes it will accomplish.
Why do I fight to get into a country where its government obviously does not want me? ...First, I have said my relationship with the U.S. extends beyond its government. It is established through my relationships with American citizens. It is also constructed by my fond personal memories...It is part of our world and that should not be taken away by an arbitrary action of a public official.
This is the second ideological exclusion case we've filed: the first one was on behalf of the American Academy of Religion and Swiss scholar Tariq Ramadan, who the Bush administration charged - and ultimately couldn't prove - had endorsed terrorism.
To tell the history and show the pervasiveness of ideological exclusion, we've launched a new interactive Web feature today that tells the stories of some of the artists, scholars and politicians the U.S. government has excluded since the practice began in 1952 to keep Communists out. It includes the stories of John Lennon, Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Nelson Mandela: all individuals who have been kept out at one point in this country's history. Check it out at www.aclu.org/passportflash.
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.