pemExecutive Director Anthony D. Romero spoke to graduates at the Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership. He stressed the critical need to protect free speech on college campuses. He calls on universities to uphold the principles of open debate and academic freedom, while also prioritizing the safety and well-being of students from discrimination and violence. Romero inspires graduates to seize leadership opportunities with bravery and compassion, recognizing their potential to make a positive impact on the world./em/p pa href=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23x7S79H88APlay the video/a/p img width=1280 height=720 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/anthony-romero-commencement-speech-colin-powell-school-city-college-ny-video-thumbnail.jpeg class=attachment-16x9_1400 size-16x9_1400 alt=Anthony Romero giving the commencement speech at the Colin Powell School of City College of New York. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/anthony-romero-commencement-speech-colin-powell-school-city-college-ny-video-thumbnail.jpeg 1280w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/anthony-romero-commencement-speech-colin-powell-school-city-college-ny-video-thumbnail-768x432.jpeg 768w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/anthony-romero-commencement-speech-colin-powell-school-city-college-ny-video-thumbnail-400x225.jpeg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/anthony-romero-commencement-speech-colin-powell-school-city-college-ny-video-thumbnail-600x338.jpeg 600w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/anthony-romero-commencement-speech-colin-powell-school-city-college-ny-video-thumbnail-800x450.jpeg 800w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/anthony-romero-commencement-speech-colin-powell-school-city-college-ny-video-thumbnail-1000x563.jpeg 1000w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/anthony-romero-commencement-speech-colin-powell-school-city-college-ny-video-thumbnail-1200x675.jpeg 1200w sizes=(max-width: 1280px) 100vw, 1280px / pWhen I was coming up here, it felt like I was coming home. I spent my early childhood not far from here, in the Castle Hill projects of the Bronx. Google maps says it’s only six miles from here, but it feels like worlds away. After the Bronx, we moved out to New Jersey, and I came back to New York after law school. I’ve now spent most of my adult life here in New York City. So, as a proud New Yorker – a proud Nuyorican – it is a special honor to be asked to speak at an institution woven so thoroughly and wonderfully into the fabric of the greatest city on earth./p pAs graduates of the Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership, you have chosen to hone your leadership skills in a world where it is easier to retreat than to lead. At a time when it’s easier to give up and climb into a cocoon where the internet delivers your food, your clothes, and your opinions to your door. But thank God you chose a different path – as leadership has never been more important than it is now. You have decided to become a part of something bigger – to fight for the changes this nation and this world so desperately need. And I am grateful that you’ve chosen this path./p pHaving made the journey from public housing to this commencement podium, I feel joyful as I look out over a crowd of young people about to embark on your own journey. Standing here at your graduation, I can’t help but recall my own. With my Papi, Mami, my sister. All dressed in our Sunday best. Over the years, my heritage as a proud Puerto Rican was a source of great strength for me. It shaped my upbringing and continues to inform my worldview to this day. Looking out at this diverse sea of students, I suspect many of your ancestors may not have arrived on the Mayflower either. But all of you – each and every single one of you – earned your place to be here. And for many of you in the Class of 2024 – just like me and my family – you’ve had to overcome extraordinary odds to reach this moment./p pI’m sure that somewhere in this class, I am looking at the next Felix Frankfurter, a City College graduate who became one of the greatest Supreme Court Justices ever to serve on the Court. Or the next Faith Ringgold, the brilliant artist and activist for gender equity and racial justice. Or the next Herb Sandler, a titan of industry who would ultimately give away a significant portion of his wealth to organizations and causes championing free speech, civil rights and social justice. Or, of course, the next Colin Powell, who broke racial barriers throughout his career and served his country for decades in military and civilian life./p pYou have accomplished a great deal and you should be proud – real proud. But let’s also remember to give credit to folks who helped you along the way. Your friends, of course. Your professors and administrators at City College. And the people who sacrificed to provide for you. The people who worked overtime to pay for tuition. The people who kept immaculate homes you came back to. The people who cooked you your meals. Who put a roof over your head. The people who had dreams for you. The people who pushed you. Believed in you. Hugged you. Picked you up when you fell down. The people who taught you how to walk. Say your first words. The people who taught you how to read. The people who showed you the meaning of the word LOVE. Of course, I am talking about your families. Your loved ones./p pAnd graduates, you can feel real proud that you’re in that cap and gown …. that you’re about to walk across this stage – styling your way as you get your diploma. But you know that that diploma is as much theirs as it is yours. So why don’t you, the graduates, get on your feet and join me in giving the moms and dads, tías and tíos, grandmeres, dadis, bubbies, nanas, abuelas and countless others, a round of applause for everything they have done to make this day happen. Thank you./p pSince we are talking about people who supported us along the way, I’d like to say a few words about someone who chose to be part of my journey – my late friend and former mentor Herb Sandler, City College Class of 1951. Founder and CEO of Golden West Financial. Herb used what he learned here to make enough money in banking that he could have built himself a castle and forgotten the problems faced by regular folks. But instead, he used what he learned at City College – and what he learned growing up poor on the Lower East side – to reach out and lift up others, as well./p pHerb used his wealth to advance freedom and justice for everyone in America. Over the years, he gave me advice, support when I was struggling, and love when I needed it./p pHerb was a true believer when it came to freedom of speech. He valued hearing divergent viewpoints – even when those viewpoints were critical of his industry, his bank or himself, personally. The press was sometimes unkind and even unfair to him, but Herb walked the walk when it came to free speech and a free press. He always believed that the answer to criticism, even if unfair or unfounded, was more speech – not less. He believed in open debate. Not censorship./p pAnd he understood the centrality of real journalism to our democracy. With his philanthropy, he helped create Pro Publica, one of the most important institutions doing tough, nonpartisan reporting./p pAt the ACLU, we believe deeply that freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and academic freedom are all interconnected – that they’re all critically important to a functioning democracy. The ability to collect and impart information. The ability to discuss, debate and even hotly contest ideas. This is especially true for challenging ideas. Controversial ideas. Even repugnant ideas. We have zealously fought for the rights of people and groups of varied ideologies and beliefs to speak their minds. From gun owners and gun opponents; anti-LGBTQ organizations and pro- LGBTQ groups, Trump supporters and anti-Trump activists./p pThat’s why the ACLU fights so passionately to protect freedom of speech on college campuses right now when it is under attack./p pAs a domestic organization, the ACLU takes no position on wars between foreign countries. Yet we champion the right of students to express themselves. Whichever side they are on, whatever it is they believe./p pUniversities have a responsibility to ensure they maintain an environment in which all students can thrive and learn, but it’s not their job to protect students from hearing or engaging with upsetting or even hurtful ideas. In fact, it’s the universities’ job to prepare the leaders of tomorrow by exposing them to challenging worldviews, competing analyses. The leaders of tomorrow – you the Class of 2024 – need to be comfortable with the contestation of facts and the clash of ideologies./p pSometimes this is a hard line to walk. As passionately as students care, free speech is not a license for violence, property destruction, or physical intimidation or harassment of other students./p pAnd as worried as administrators are, they must respect their students’ free speech rights and honor the long and important tradition of student campus activism./p pThat means that universities must not single out particular viewpoints for censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment. Whether students carry Palestinian, Israeli, or American flags, whether they are progressives, moderates, or conservatives, everyone must be accorded the same rights and accept the same responsibilities./p pUniversities have also an obligation to protect students from discriminatory harassment and violence. This year, too many universities have failed to meet this obligation to their Jewish, Muslim, Arab, Israeli, and Palestinian students./p pAt the same time, universities must not penalize students for expressing their views, even if they do so in deeply offensive terms./p pThey can announce and enforce reasonable content-neutral time, place, or manner policies on protesting activity, but they must leave ample room for students to express themselves./p pUniversities must also recognize that armed police on campus can endanger students – students of color in particular – and should be a measure of last resort./p pAnd, finally, administrators must recognize that many of the pressures that are being placed on them are coming from politicians seeking to exploit campus tensions. Recognizing the source of these pressures is the first step, resisting them is the second./p pClass of 2024, you are graduating at a challenging moment. No one would blame you if you wanted to reconsider your career in leadership and public service right now./p pBut I’m guessing that’s not going to happen. You are New York City tough. You are City College trained. You follow in the footsteps of Frankfurter, Reinggold, Sandler and Powell. You are meant for more. Much has been given to you and even greater things are expected from you./p pReach out and make a difference in peoples’ lives like your parents and professors did. Get off the beaten path, discover new communities. Respect and engage with people whose passions and opinions differ from your own. Speak your mind with courage and clarity, but also stand up for the right of your opponents to do the same. Become part of institutions that will magnify your voice and drive change./p pLeadership isn’t ordained from above. It doesn’t come from yelling the loudest and it certainly isn’t possible from a self-imposed isolation chamber. It comes from your heart. From your mind. From the sweat of your brow. It comes from your communities; from the institutions you will populate and lead – and from the people whose lives you will touch./p pCongratulations, graduates. And thank you in advance for what I know you are going to achieve. The world desperately needs the 2024 graduates of the Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership. It will be thrilling to watch you rock it. And now, give yourselves the round of applause you so deeply deserve./p

pFor more than 100 years, the ACLU has defended students’ First Amendment rights across the United States. Since April, more than 2,000 people have been a href=https://www.aclu.org/podcast/special-edition-what-were-seeing-at-campus-anti-war-protestsarrested/a or detained for participating in anti-war protests on campuses across the country. And it’s not just anyone and everyone protesting on campus who’s getting arrested or facing unjust repercussions. Specifically, authorities are disproportionately targeting those protesting for the rights of Palestinian people./p p“We will defend anyone whose free speech and association are being challenged and stifled by the government. But especially in this moment, we#8217;re not seeing ‘both sides’ be stifled in the same way,” said Allegra Harpootlian, a senior communications strategist with the ACLU. She’s part of the team who helped put this comic series together./p p“The majority of censorship and repression has been directed toward people who are supporting the Palestinian people, and that was definitely true in the case of Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida./p imagegrid :images='[{quot;srcquot;:quot;https:\/\/assets.aclu.org\/live\/uploads\/2024\/05\/SJP-4X5-FINAL-P1.pngquot;,quot;altquot;:quot;A comic panel that says \quot;Our student group has long advocated for Palestinian human rights. In recent months our activism has felt more important than ever. So we freaked out when Gov. DeSantis ordered our school to an us.\quot;quot;,quot;slugquot;:quot;sjp-4x5-final-p1quot;,quot;titlequot;:quot;quot;,quot;subtitle_1quot;:quot;quot;,quot;subtitle_2quot;:quot;quot;,quot;descriptionquot;:quot;quot;,quot;urlquot;:quot;quot;,quot;display_descriptive_text_in_gridquot;:true},{quot;srcquot;:quot;https:\/\/assets.aclu.org\/live\/uploads\/2024\/05\/SJP-4X5-FINAL-P2.pngquot;,quot;altquot;:quot;A comic panel that says \quot;Florida officials didn\u0027t even suggest that we had violated any law or policy in the deactivation order. Instead they pointed to statements by the national SJP chapter, an independent group, and used that to baselessly accuse us of supporting terrorism.\quot;quot;,quot;slugquot;:quot;sjp-4x5-final-p2quot;,quot;titlequot;:quot;quot;,quot;subtitle_1quot;:quot;quot;,quot;subtitle_2quot;:quot;quot;,quot;descriptionquot;:quot;quot;,quot;urlquot;:quot;quot;,quot;display_descriptive_text_in_gridquot;:true},{quot;srcquot;:quot;https:\/\/assets.aclu.org\/live\/uploads\/2024\/05\/SJP-4X5-FINAL-P3.pngquot;,quot;altquot;:quot;A comic panel that says \quot;The order was used to stigmatize and silence us. We didn\u0027t stop our work, but we were constantly worried about what this attempt at government censorship meant for us and our group.\quot;quot;,quot;slugquot;:quot;sjp-4x5-final-p3quot;,quot;titlequot;:quot;quot;,quot;subtitle_1quot;:quot;quot;,quot;subtitle_2quot;:quot;quot;,quot;descriptionquot;:quot;quot;,quot;urlquot;:quot;quot;,quot;display_descriptive_text_in_gridquot;:true},{quot;srcquot;:quot;https:\/\/assets.aclu.org\/live\/uploads\/2024\/05\/SJP-4X5-FINAL-P4.pngquot;,quot;altquot;:quot;A comic panel that says \quot;We weren\u0027t the only ones in fear of being silenced. Students around the country, then and now, face censorship attempts.\quot;quot;,quot;slugquot;:quot;sjp-4x5-final-p4quot;,quot;titlequot;:quot;quot;,quot;subtitle_1quot;:quot;quot;,quot;subtitle_2quot;:quot;quot;,quot;descriptionquot;:quot;quot;,quot;urlquot;:quot;quot;,quot;display_descriptive_text_in_gridquot;:true},{quot;srcquot;:quot;https:\/\/assets.aclu.org\/live\/uploads\/2024\/05\/SJP-4X5-FINAL-P5.pngquot;,quot;altquot;:quot;A comic panel that says \quot;But we know our rights. We weren\u0027t doing anything wrong \u2014 so we took Florida officials to court.\quot;quot;,quot;slugquot;:quot;sjp-4x5-final-p5quot;,quot;titlequot;:quot;quot;,quot;subtitle_1quot;:quot;quot;,quot;subtitle_2quot;:quot;quot;,quot;descriptionquot;:quot;quot;,quot;urlquot;:quot;quot;,quot;display_descriptive_text_in_gridquot;:true},{quot;srcquot;:quot;https:\/\/assets.aclu.org\/live\/uploads\/2024\/05\/SJP-4X5-FINAL-P6.pngquot;,quot;altquot;:quot;A comic panel that says \quot;At the end of the hearing, the judge addressed the students at the center of this case. That doesn\u0027t happen a lot.\quot;quot;,quot;slugquot;:quot;sjp-4x5-final-p6quot;,quot;titlequot;:quot;quot;,quot;subtitle_1quot;:quot;quot;,quot;subtitle_2quot;:quot;quot;,quot;descriptionquot;:quot;quot;,quot;urlquot;:quot;quot;,quot;display_descriptive_text_in_gridquot;:true},{quot;srcquot;:quot;https:\/\/assets.aclu.org\/live\/uploads\/2024\/05\/SJP-4X5-FINAL-P7.pngquot;,quot;altquot;:quot;A comic panel that says \quot;A couple of weeks later, the judge found that Florida officials didn\u0027t intent to carry out their threat of deactivating us. It was a win, but it followed months of fear and anxiety.\quot;quot;,quot;slugquot;:quot;sjp-4x5-final-p7quot;,quot;titlequot;:quot;quot;,quot;subtitle_1quot;:quot;quot;,quot;subtitle_2quot;:quot;quot;,quot;descriptionquot;:quot;quot;,quot;urlquot;:quot;quot;,quot;display_descriptive_text_in_gridquot;:true},{quot;srcquot;:quot;https:\/\/assets.aclu.org\/live\/uploads\/2024\/05\/SJP-4X5-FINAL-P8.pngquot;,quot;altquot;:quot;A comic panel that says \quot;Our chapter believes that speaking up for Palestine is speaking up for humanity. This experience has been tough, but we\u0027re so proud to fight for our First Amendment rights.\quot;quot;,quot;slugquot;:quot;sjp-4x5-final-p8quot;,quot;titlequot;:quot;quot;,quot;subtitle_1quot;:quot;quot;,quot;subtitle_2quot;:quot;quot;,quot;descriptionquot;:quot;quot;,quot;urlquot;:quot;quot;,quot;display_descriptive_text_in_gridquot;:true}]' alignment='top' :images-per-row-desktop='4' :images-per-row-mobile='2' /imagegrid pThe a href=https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-rules-florida-officials-do-not-intend-to-deactivate-university-of-floridas-students-for-justice-in-palestinestory/a of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at the University of Florida is so emblematic of attempted censorship, that I made a comic about it, with the help of a team at the ACLU. In it, we aim to provide young people with important information about unlawfully silencing free speech that could apply to them iright now/i. We also want to highlight stories of bravery by students who fought for their rights./p pThe process of creating the comic began months ago. It’s been a long journey, and for good reason; illustrative journalism – especially pieces that include minors or young people – requires close attention to detail, and careful depiction of a subject. But in this case, I knew it was especially important to consider legality and safety when mixing the story with illustration./p pLike I described in the Qamp;A for the a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/how-comics-can-spark-conversations-about-race-and-history-in-the-classroomfirst comic/a in this series, it’s important for the person or group I’m portraying to feel comfortable with the visual representation I’m creating of them. The students who were a part of the case challenging threats to deactivate the University of Florida’s SJP organization also needed an additional layer of safety: individual anonymity./p video controls source src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/SJPtimelapse1.mp4 type=video/mp4 / Sorry, your browser doesn't support embedded videos. /video pEven outside of especially sensitive cases like this one, It’s important for journalists to consider the safety of young people when writing news about them that may leave them vulnerable to negative consequences, which is why I offer the option of anonymity to the demographic more often than not. Young people are taking a greater risk in sharing their difficulties than most older adults – many are yet to begin their public, adult lives. As a journalist determined to bring stories of injustice towards youth and young adults to light, my job is to represent their struggles and victories in a way that helps them and others like them, not to harm their future./p pIn the past few years especially, activists have been subject to a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/some-steps-to-defend-against-online-doxxing-and-harassmentdigital attacks/a that go beyond the verbal, such as doxxing and hacking, which is why protecting the identities of young people was just as, if not more, pressing in this piece. The safety of University of Florida SJP members was a core concern from the beginning of bringing their case./p pHarpootlian, the ACLU communications strategist on our comics team, was also part of the group advising the students on safety protocols at the time of the case./p p“We know there is no perfect solution to digital privacy, but we also e have a duty to keep our clients safe. We took this case on right around the time that two students had been shot in Vermont, and Florida is a concealed-carry state. It is a state that has had violence against activists,” she said. “We didn#8217;t want to put students in harm#8217;s way.”/p video controls source src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/SJPtimelapse2.mp4 type=video/mp4 / Sorry, your browser doesn't support embedded videos. /video pSo I did the same. That’s why the comic is set in the first-person plural perspective – the “we” in the panels. In telling stories of struggle and resilience, I didn’t want to single out one student, just for them to fall in harm’s way for telling their story./p pIt wasn’t a challenge to maintain detail and narrative despite not being able to work with a specific perspective. So much of what these students went through happened with each other – they faced their challenges as a collective./p pCollectively, students in the University of Florida’s chapter of Students for Justice for Palestine were afraid of the consequences of threatened disbandment. Collectively, the students – who come from all backgrounds, including those who are not Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, or Jewish – felt the stigmatization of the phrasing used in the a href=https://www.flbog.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Deactivation-of-Students-for-Justice-in-Palestine.pdfmemorandum/a that called for the group’s disbandment./p pAnd collectively, that same group of students continued to speak out, despite the pressure that came from, in the words of the judge who oversaw the case, the most powerful person in Florida./p div class=mb-8 wp-pullquote standard div class= wp-pullquote-inner p#8220;It wasn’t a challenge to maintain detail and narrative despite not being able to work with a specific perspective. So much of what these students went through happened with each other – they faced their challenges as a collective.#8221;/p /div /div pThis piece is meant to reflect the perspective of some of the students who make up the Students for Justice in Palestine chapter at the University of Florida. The final panel of the comic displays resolute students continuing to march even after months of threatened repercussions. The panel’s text reads, “Our chapter believes that speaking up for Palestine is speaking up for humanity.”/p pDespite the arduous experience of taking Florida officials to court, the University of Florida SJP members said they were proud to have fought for the First Amendment rights of all students. At a time when free speech and free expression in schools are under attack across the country, the students at the University of Florida are not alone, and they must not be silenced./p

pThe Supreme Court’s docket this term includes many of the complex issues American society is currently facing, including gun control, free speech online, race-based discrimination in voting, reproductive rights, presidential immunity from criminal accountability, and more./p pThe ACLU has served as counsel or filed friend-of-the-court briefs in all of the cases addressing these hot-button issues. The court will decide all its cases by the beginning of July. Here are eight undecided cases to watch, and what they mean for the future of our civil liberties./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markReproductive freedom: Protections for medication abortion and access to abortion during medical emergencies /h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardFDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine/h3 /div pbThe Facts:/b Anti-abortion doctors, who do not prescribe medication abortion, are asking the Supreme Court to force the Food amp; Drug Administration (FDA) to impose severe restrictions on mifepristone – a safe and effective medication used in this country in most abortions and for miscarriage management – in every state, even where abortion is protected by state law./p pbOur Argument: /bThe FDA approved mifepristone more than 20 years ago, finding that it is safe, effective, and medically necessary. Since its approval, more than 5 million people in the U.S. have used this medication. Our brief argued that the two lower courts – a district court in Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit – relied on junk science and discredited witnesses to override the FDA’s expert decision to eliminate medically-unnecessary restrictions on an essential medication with a stronger safety record than Tylenol. We urged the Supreme Court to protect access to medication abortion and reverse the lower courts’ rulings./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/danco-laboratories-llc-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine-u-s-fda-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a.jpg 700w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a-400x200.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/danco-laboratories-llc-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine-u-s-fda-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine target=_blank Danco Laboratories, LLC, v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine; U.S. FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/danco-laboratories-llc-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine-u-s-fda-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletThe American Civil Liberties Union joined over 200 reproductive health, rights, and justice organizations in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/danco-laboratories-llc-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine-u-s-fda-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters:/b Today, with abortion access already severely restricted, the ability to get medication-abortion care using mifepristone is more important than ever. If the Fifth Circuit’s ruling is allowed to stand, individuals would be blocked from filling mifepristone prescriptions through mail-order pharmacies, forcing many to travel, sometimes hundreds of miles, just to pick up a pill they can safely receive through the mail. Healthcare professionals with specialized training, like advanced practice clinicians, would also be prohibited from prescribing mifepristone, further limiting where patients can access this critical medication. The American Cancer Society and other leading patient advocacy groups are also sounding the alarm that overturning the FDA’s decision would upend drug innovation and research, with consequences well beyond reproductive health care./p pbThe Last Word: /b“As this case shows, overturningi Roe v. Wade /iwasn’t the end goal for extremists. In addition to targeting nationwide-access to mifepristone, politicians in some states have already moved on to attack birth control and IVF. We need to take these extremists seriously when they show us they’re coming for every aspect of our reproductive lives.” – emJennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project./em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardIdaho amp; Moyle et. al v. US/h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bIdaho politicians want the power to disregard the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) that requires emergency rooms to provide stabilizing treatment to patients in emergency situations, including abortion where that is the appropriate stabilizing treatment. If the state prevails, it would jail doctors for providing pregnant patients with the necessary emergency care required under this federal law./p pbOur Argument: /bThe ACLU and its legal partners filed a friend-of-the-court brief explaining that the law requires hospitals to provide whatever emergency care is required; there is no carve-out for patients who need an abortion to stabilize an emergency condition. All three branches of government have long recognized that hospitals are required under EMTALA to provide emergency abortion care to any patient who needs it./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/idaho-and-moyle-et-al-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a.jpg 700w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a-400x200.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/359637f7872568a863b03d635c156d9a-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/idaho-and-moyle-et-al-v-united-states target=_blank Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/idaho-and-moyle-et-al-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletIdaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by Idaho politicians seeking to disregard a federal statute — the.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/idaho-and-moyle-et-al-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters:/b Because Idaho#8217;s current abortion ban prohibits providing the emergency care required under EMTALA, medical providers have found themselves having to decide between providing necessary emergency care to a pregnant patient or facing criminal prosecution from the state. Depending on how the court rules, medical providers and patients in several other states with extreme abortion bans could find themselves in a similar position./p pbThe Last Word: /b“If these politicians succeed, doctors will be forced to withhold critical care from their patients. We’re already seeing the devastating impact of this case play out in Idaho, and we fear a ripple effect across the country.” – emAlexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markFree speech: Government authority over online and political speech /h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardNational Rifle Association v. Vullo /h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bIn 2018, Maria Vullo, New York’s former chief financial regulator, in coordination with then-Mayor Andrew Cuomo, threatened to use her regulatory power over banks and insurance companies to coerce them into denying basic financial services to the National Rifle Association (NRA) because she and Cuomo disagreed with its pro-gun rights advocacy. The NRA argued that Vullo’s alleged efforts to blacklist the NRA penalized it for its political advocacy, in violation of the First Amendment./p pbOur Argument: /bThe ACLU, representing the NRA at the Supreme Court, argued that any government attempt to blacklist an advocacy group and deny it financial services because of its viewpoint violates the right to free speech. Our brief urges the court to apply the precedent it set in 1963 in iBantam Books v. Sullivan/i, which established that even informal, indirect efforts to censor speech violate the First Amendment./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374.jpg 700w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374-400x200.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo target=_blank National Rifle Association v. Vullo /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletOn January 9th, 2024, the American Civil Liberties Union filed its opening brief on behalf of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in National.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters: /bWhile the ACLU stands in stark opposition to the NRA on many issues, this case is about securing basic First Amendment rights for all advocacy organizations. If New York State is allowed to blacklist the NRA, then Oklahoma could similarly penalize criminal justice reformers advocating for bail reform, and Texas could target climate change organizations advancing the view that all fossil fuel extraction must end. The ACLU itself could be targeted for its advocacy./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/why-is-the-aclu-representing-the-nra-before-the-us-supreme-court target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1200 height=628 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec.jpg 1200w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-768x402.jpg 768w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-400x209.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-600x314.jpg 600w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-800x419.jpg 800w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/7e5c30fc4a1d9a737ed614291b23e1ec-1000x523.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/why-is-the-aclu-representing-the-nra-before-the-us-supreme-court target=_blank Why is the ACLU Representing the NRA Before the US Supreme Court? /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/why-is-the-aclu-representing-the-nra-before-the-us-supreme-court target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletThe ACLU has always stood up for free speech – no matter the speaker./p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/why-is-the-aclu-representing-the-nra-before-the-us-supreme-court target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbThe Last Word: /b“The right to advocate views the government opposes safeguards our ability to organize for the country we want to see. It’s a principle the ACLU has defended for more than 100 years, and one we will continue to protect from government censorship of all kinds, whether we agree or disagree with the views of those being targeted.” – emDavid Cole, ACLU legal director/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardNetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice /h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bMotivated by a perception that social media platforms disproportionately silence conservative voices, Florida and Texas passed laws that give the government authority to regulate how large social media companies like Facebook and YouTube curate content posted on their sites./p pbOur Argument: /bIn a friend-of-the-court brief, the ACLU, the ACLU of Florida and the ACLU of Texas argued that the First Amendment right to speak includes the right to choose what to publish and how to prioritize what is published. The government’s desire to have private speakers, like social media companies, distribute more conservative viewpoints–or any specific viewpoints–is not a permissible basis for state control of what content appears on privately-owned platforms./p pbWhy it Matters:/b If these laws are allowed to stand, platforms may fear liability and decide to publish nothing at all, effectively eliminating the internet’s function as a modern public square. Or, in an attempt to comply with government regulations, social media companies may be forced to publish a lot more distracting and unwanted content. For example, under the Texas law, which requires “viewpoint neutrality,” a platform that publishes posts about suicide prevention would also have to publish posts directing readers to websites that encourage suicide. ./p pbThe Last Word: /b“Social media companies have a First Amendment right to choose what to host, display, and publish. The Supreme Court has recognized that right for everyone from booksellers to newspapers to cable companies, and this case should make clear that the same is true for social media platforms.” — emVera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, amp; Technology Project/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markVoting rights: Racial gerrymandering and the fight for fair maps /h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardAlexander v. South Carolina NAACP/h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bIn 2022, South Carolina adopted a racially-gerrymandered congressional map. The state legislature singled out Black communities, “cracking” predominantly Black communities and neighborhoods across two districts to reduce their electoral influence in the state’s first congressional district./p pbOur Argument: /bThe ACLU and its legal partners sued on behalf of the South Carolina NAACP and an affected voter to challenge the constitutionality of the new congressional map. We argued that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the sorting of voters on the basis of their race, absent a compelling interest, which the state failed to provide./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/alexander-v-south-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1000 height=667 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82.jpg 1000w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82-768x512.jpg 768w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82-400x267.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82-600x400.jpg 600w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/05/adacb5fd2b08ce6397602bca3ce44e82-800x534.jpg 800w sizes=(max-width: 1000px) 100vw, 1000px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/alexander-v-south-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp target=_blank Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (Congressional Map Challenge) /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/alexander-v-south-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletSouth Carolina unlawfully assigned voters to congressional districts based on their race and intentionally discriminated against Black voters in.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/alexander-v-south-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters: /bThis racially-gerrymandered congressional map deprives Black South Carolinians the political representation they deserve in all but one of seven districts, limiting the power and influence of more than a quarter of the state’s population just before the 2024 election./p pbThe Last Word: /b“South Carolina’s failure to rectify its racially-gerrymandered congressional map blatantly disregards the voices and the rights of Black voters. The ACLU is determined to fight back until Black South Carolina voters have a lawful map that fairly represents them.” – emAdriel I. Cepeda Derieux, deputy director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markGender justice: Denying guns to persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders/h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardUnited States v. Rahimi /h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bZackey Rahimi was convicted under a federal law that forbids individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders from possessing a firearm. Mr. Rahimi challenged the law as a violation of his Second Amendment right to bear arms./p pbOur Argument: /bThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders have a constitutional right to possess guns. It invalidated the federal gun law because it found no historical analogues in the 1700s or 1800s that prohibited those subject to domestic violence protective orders from possessing a firearm. The ACLU argued that the Fifth Circuit’s analysis is a misapplication of the Supreme Court’s decision in iNew York State Rifle amp; Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen/i because it effectively required a “historical twin” law in order to uphold a law today. There were no identical laws at the time of the Framing because there were no domestic violence protective orders then, but that should not be a basis for invalidating the laws today. We also argued that imposing time-limited firearms restrictions based on civil restraining orders is a critical tool for protecting those who have experienced domestic violence and face a threat of further violence./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-rahimi target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/5d4549447588adb73b5aba378f7d7f59.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/5d4549447588adb73b5aba378f7d7f59.jpg 700w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/5d4549447588adb73b5aba378f7d7f59-400x200.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2024/03/5d4549447588adb73b5aba378f7d7f59-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-rahimi target=_blank United States v. Rahimi /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-rahimi target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletWhether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/united-states-v-rahimi target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters: /bIf the Fifth Circuit’s rationale is affirmed, then governments would lose the ability to prohibit gun possession by persons subject to restraining orders — and presumably even to run pre-acquisition background checks, which have stopped more than 77,000 purchases of weapons by individuals subject to domestic violence orders in the 25 years that the federal law has been in place. This “originalist” interpretation of the Second Amendment not only hinders our ability to protect individuals against newly recognized threats, but also tethers the authority to regulate gun possession to periods when governments disregarded many forms of violence directed against women, Black people, Indigenous people, and others./p pbThe Last Word:/b “It would be a radical mistake to allow historical wrongs to defeat efforts today to protect women and other survivors of domestic abuse. The Supreme Court should affirm that the government can enact laws aimed at preventing intimate partner violence, consistent with the Second Amendment.” –em Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markCriminal justice: Eighth-Amendment protections for unhoused persons accused of sleeping in public when they have nowhere else to go /h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardCity of Grants Pass v. Johnson /h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bGrants Pass, Oregon, enacted ordinances that make it illegal for people, including unhoused persons with no access to shelter, to sleep outside in public using a blanket, pillow, or even a cardboard sheet to lie on. Last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that punishing unhoused people for sleeping in public when they have no other choice violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment./p pbOur Argument: /bIn Oregon, and elsewhere in the United States, the population of unhoused persons often exceeds the number of shelter beds available, forcing many to sleep on the streets or in parks. The ACLU and 19 state affiliates submitted a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that it is cruel and unusual to punish unhoused people for the essential life-sustaining activity of sleeping outside when they lack access to any alternative shelter./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252.jpg 700w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252-400x200.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson target=_blank City of Grants Pass v. Johnson /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tablet/p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/city-of-grants-pass-v-johnson target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters: /bWhen applied to people with nowhere else to go, fines and arrests for sleeping outside serve no purpose and are plainly disproportionately punitive. Arresting and fining unhoused people for sleeping in public only exacerbates cycles of homelessness and mass incarceration./p pbThe Last Word: /b“There is no punishment that fits the ‘crime’ of being forced to sleep outside. Instead of saddling people with fines, jail time, and criminal records, cities should focus on proven solutions, like affordable housing, accessible and voluntary services, and eviction protections.” – emScout Katovich, staff attorney with the ACLU Trone Center for Justice and Equality/em/p div class=wp-heading mb-8 hr class=mark / h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-markDemocracy: Presidential immunity from prosecution for criminal acts after leaving office /h2 /div div class=wp-heading mb-8 h3 id= class=wp-heading-h3 with-standardTrump v. United States/h3 /div pbThe Facts: /bFormer President Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to rule that he cannot be held criminally liable for any official acts as president, even after leaving office, and even where the crimes concern efforts to resist the peaceful transition of power after an election. This claim runs contrary to fundamental principles of constitutional accountability, and decades of precedent./p pbOur Argument: /bOur friend-of-the-court brief argues that former President Trump is not immune from criminal prosecution, and that the Constitution and long-established Supreme Court precedent support the principle that in our democracy, nobody is above the law — even the president. Our brief warns that there are “few propositions more dangerous” in a democracy than the notion that an elected head of state has blanket immunity from criminal prosecution./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/trump-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252.jpg 700w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252-400x200.jpg 400w, https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2023/06/ba988bc008254460d80a4ea1aa03d252-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/trump-v-united-states target=_blank Trump v. United States /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/trump-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tablet/p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/trump-v-united-states target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pbWhy it Matters: /bNo other president has asserted that presidents can never be prosecuted for official acts that violate criminal law. The president’s accountability to the law is an integral part of the separation of powers and the rule of law. If the President is free, as Trump’s legal counsel argued, to order the assassination of his political opponents and escape all criminal accountability even after he leaves office, both of these fundamental principles of our system would have a fatal Achilles’ heel./p pbThe Last Word: /b“The United States does not have a king, and former presidents have no claim to being above the law. A functioning democracy depends on our ability to critically reckon with the troubling actions of government officials and hold them accountable.” – emDavid Cole, ACLU legal director /em/p

pRight now, efforts to censor college protestors, to ban diverse materials in schools and to silence students and staff threaten our right to free speech in schools. People are having their voices silenced, their right to learn challenged, and their access to information restricted. But how can we navigate these complex issues with the next generation?/p pWe at the ACLU created a series of comic stories with illustrative journalist Eda Uzunlar to empower students and educators, spark vital conversations about their rights, and ensure all voices are heard and clear, both in the classroom and beyond. Our first installment illustrates the story of Anthony Crawford who is a public school teacher and part of a a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/bert-v-oconnorlawsuit challenging HB 1775/a, Oklahoma’s classroom censorship law./p pIn this Qamp;A, we sat down with Eda to discuss why comics are the perfect medium to tackle these issues and connect with young people in a way that resonates far more effectively than traditional media can./p pbLet’s start with your journey as an illustrative journalist, comic creator, and audio enthusiast. What inspired you to use this kind of medium for your work?/b/p pI#8217;ve been making comics since childhood. Like most kids, I doodled, and eventually, my doodles turned into my first comic. It was about a character called Spaceman – creative, I know – an astronaut stranded on the moon. He was this sardonic, really sarcastic, figure. It was a simple concept. He became this kind of vessel for expressing myself as a young person, particularly growing up in South Dakota with my family being both Muslim and immigrants from Turkey. Expressing these issues in a way that people who were very different from me would understand was crucial to me./p div class=wp-single-image sizing--full-bleed mb-8 figure class=wp-image mb-8 img width=2800 height=1400 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-three.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt=A preview of Eda Uzunlar#039;s comic featuring teacher and activist Anothy Crawford. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-three.jpg 2800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-three-768x384.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-three-1536x768.jpg 1536w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-three-2048x1024.jpg 2048w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-three-400x200.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-three-600x300.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-three-800x400.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-three-1000x500.jpg 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-three-1200x600.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-three-1400x700.jpg 1400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-three-1600x800.jpg 1600w sizes=(max-width: 2800px) 100vw, 2800px / /figure /div pI realized that comics are a way to discuss complex stories without oversimplifying them. But I never imagined it would become a career. Similarly, my entry into journalism was unexpected. Someone introduced me to FM radio in my teens. Within a year, community radio became this amazing space for me where I hosted a show discussing anything, from civil disobedience to whether or not respect is implied or earned – things I thought people from any background could weigh in on. And I don’t know why they gave a 16-year-old the ability to take live calls, but I got to talk to so many people in my community that way. It felt like a continuation of my comics — anonymous conversations driven by passion rather than preconceived notions based on appearances./p pSo I took those experiences and turned them into what I do now. I try to help people tell their stories – no matter how complex – in an accessible way, so others can gain understanding of perspectives they might not have known about before./p pbIt#8217;s so great how you#8217;ve integrated your childhood passion for comics with your later pursuits in journalism and radio. You mentioned that comics offer a unique way to discuss complex issues without oversimplifying them. How do you navigate that balance between accessibility and depth when creating your comic content?/b/p pIt#8217;s all about breaking down big ideas into something digestible and engaging. When stories like these are presented in a visual format, it helps the audience both process and retain what they’re taking in. This especially applies to younger people. They#8217;re the ones making use of social media and watching YouTube to learn about the world around them. Traditional newspapers? Not so much for them. And when we#8217;re talking about accessibility, it#8217;s a big deal. There#8217;s a direct correlation between marginalized groups and limited access to media literacy. Traditional long-form journalism often fails to reach these communities./p div class=wp-single-image sizing--full-bleed mb-8 figure class=wp-image mb-8 img width=2800 height=1400 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-3-b.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt=A preview of Eda Uzunlar#039;s comic featuring teacher and activist Anothy Crawford. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-3-b.jpg 2800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-3-b-768x384.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-3-b-1536x768.jpg 1536w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-3-b-2048x1024.jpg 2048w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-3-b-400x200.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-3-b-600x300.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-3-b-800x400.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-3-b-1000x500.jpg 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-3-b-1200x600.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-3-b-1400x700.jpg 1400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/crt-3-b-1600x800.jpg 1600w sizes=(max-width: 2800px) 100vw, 2800px / /figure /div pTake, for instance, the whole debate around critical race theory (CRT) in Oklahoma. A long-winded article might not reach the people who need to hear about it most. But with comics, we#8217;re able to package up those complex ideas into something that will catch your eye and is easy to grasp. It#8217;s like delivering a message directly to their social media feed. By making these reported stories visually engaging and using everyday language, we#8217;re making sure that everyone gets a chance to join the conversation, especially those who might feel left out by traditional media channels, especially the ones with a paywall./p pbLet’s talk about this first comic you worked on about Anthony Crawford, an Oklahoma teacher who is part of a lawsuit challenging a classroom censorship bill. How did your approach to brainstorming and initial sketches contribute to capturing his story, particularly in conveying the depth of Black history and the importance of including both student and teacher perspectives?/b/p pThere#8217;s a process where you try very hard not to limit yourself at the beginning. That#8217;s where you do quick sketches of one panel ten times, trying anything that might be cool to represent the idea. For example, for the panel about Black history being filled with wisdom, not just difficulty, there are a thousand ways to approach it. That could be represented literally with historical figures, or the opposite, which is what I did – a tree. A really big, grand tree. On its own, it could mean anything. But with the context and few words in the panel, it suggests a huge heritage and lineage. Trees are generational, lasting hundreds or even thousands of years. I had about five ideas, and then I saw how the tree looked. The detail and grandeur of this single image helped convey the depth to which Anthony described the importance of Black history in America, aligning with the voice he gave it throughout the piece. That#8217;s another thing – I went back and said, #8220;Listen, there#8217;s just a tree in this panel, but it’s based on how you talked about what Black history feels like to you.#8221; Like history existed before we were here and after we#8217;re gone, just like a tree. And he was like, #8220;That#8217;s perfect.#8221;/p video controls source src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/TREENAME_TIMELAPSE.mp4 type=video/mp4 / Sorry, your browser doesn't support embedded videos. /video div class=wp-audio div class=wp-audio__content div class=wp-audio__metadata h3 class=wp-audio__episode-titleEda on Adding Figures in Black History to An Illustration/h3 /div audio controls controlslist= source src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/treenames.mp3 type=audio/mpeg Your browser does not support the audio element. /audio /div div class=wp-audio__links a class=wp-audio__download-link href=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/treenames.mp3 target=_blankDownload audio/a /div /div pWith critical race theory and book bans, everyone loses. The teacher, the student, the whole community is affected when our right to learn and right to free speech are stifled. So we really wanted to get both the student and teacher perspectives. Anthony opened his own story as a teenage version of himself in the early 2000s, enraged because he wasn’t being taught his own community’s history, discussing his experience as a student, which served as an ideal starting point for the piece. Eventually, he transitions into the current day, where he’s facing the same problem – only now, he’s the teacher. And there’s this vague law in Oklahoma that makes it hard for him to teach that same history, and the history of other oppressed communities in America. This shift illustrates the cyclical nature of issues like CRT and book bans in Oklahoma, highlighting how such restrictions on free speech persist over time. The initial depiction of Anthony as an unhappy student parallels the final panel where he faces his own students, who are motivated to learn because they can actually see themselves in their histories./p pbFrom Anthony’s perspective as a teacher, the issue of critical race theory getting banned is represented as one that educators like him are worried about. How did you make sure that struggle spoke to the younger audience as well? /b/p pWhen students face dilemmas like seeing banned books in their libraries and the removal of celebrated authors of color from their curriculum, it can shake their confidence in their education and understanding of history. That’s the first part of the comic, and allows young people to make connections with the younger version of Anthony. Then, the narrative zeroes in on the educator perspective. Anthony champions diverse perspectives in his classroom. Through his actions, the comic reveals Anthony’s motivations for teaching, emphasizing his dedication to his students and his younger self. That’s where I wanted students to connect to the teacher side of the comic – so they know that if their right to an inclusive education is stifled, even if none of their own teachers have taken steps to continue teaching about America’s diverse history, there are educators out there who care and are making a difference. My hope is that by seeing someone who was once in their shoes assert his First Amendment rights, current students feel empowered to do the same for themselves./p video controls source src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/AC_TIMELAPSE.mp4 type=video/mp4 / Sorry, your browser doesn't support embedded videos. /video div class=wp-audio div class=wp-audio__content div class=wp-audio__metadata h3 class=wp-audio__episode-titleEda on Drawing Anthony /h3 /div audio controls controlslist= source src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/anthonydrawing.wav type=audio/mpeg Your browser does not support the audio element. /audio /div div class=wp-audio__links a class=wp-audio__download-link href=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/anthonydrawing.wav target=_blankDownload audio/a /div /div pIn fact, I have seen my comics be used as a connection between students and teachers. I put out a comic about juvenile justice, and about a year later, a teacher from Wyoming reached out to me on Facebook and shared that one of their students shared my comic with them. Next thing you know, they#8217;re teaching it in their classes, sparking discussions on juvenile justice, and showing students how to navigate tough situations. It#8217;s pretty amazing, right? Shows how comics can really make a difference in the real world by influencing education and promoting meaningful dialogue./p

pDear College and University Presidents:/p pWe write in response to the recent protests that have spread across our nation’s university and college campuses, and the disturbing arrests that have followed. We understand that as leaders of your campus communities, it can be extraordinarily difficult to navigate the pressures you face from politicians, donors, and faculty and students alike. You also have legal obligations to combat discrimination and a responsibility to maintain order. But as you fashion responses to the activism of your students (and faculty and staff), it is essential that you not sacrifice principles of academic freedom and free speech that are core to the educational mission of your respected institution./p pThe ACLU a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-streets-belong-to-the-people-always-have-always-willhelped/a establish the right to protest as a central pillar of the First Amendment. We have defended those principles for more than a century. The a href=https://www.aclu.org/documents/united-states-bill-rights-first-10-amendments-constitutionFirst Amendment/a compels public universities and colleges to respect free speech rights. And while the Constitution does not apply directly to private institutions, academic freedom and free inquiry require that similar principles guide private universities. We approach this moment with appreciation for the challenges you confront. In the spirit of offering constructive solutions for a way forward, we offer five basic guardrails to ensure freedom of speech and academic freedom while protecting against discriminatory harassment and disruptive conduct./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardSchools must not single out particular viewpoints for censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment/h2 /div piFirst/i, university administrators must not single out particular viewpoints — however offensive they may be to some members of the community — for censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment. Viewpoint neutrality is essential. Harassment directed at individuals because of their race, ethnicity, or religion is not, of course, permissible. But general calls for a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea,” or defenses of Israel’s assault on Gaza, even if many listeners find these messages deeply offensive, cannot be prohibited or punished by a university that respects free speech principles./p pThese protections extend to both students and faculty, and to speech that supports either side of the conflict. Outside the classroom, including on social media, students and professors must be free to express even the most controversial political opinions without fear of discipline or censure. Inside the classroom, speech can be and always has been subject to more restrictive rules to ensure civil dialogue and a robust learning environment. But such rules have no place in a public forum like a campus green. Preserving physical safety on campuses is paramount; but “safety” from ideas or views that one finds offensive is anathema to the very enterprise of the university./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardSchools must protect students from discriminatory harassment and violence/h2 /div piSecond/i, both public and private universities are bound by civil rights laws that guarantee all students equal access to education, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. This means that schools can, and indeed must, protect students from discriminatory harassment on the basis of race or national origin, which has been a href=https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/sharedancestry.htmlinterpreted/a to include discrimination on the basis of “shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics,” or “citizenship or residency in a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity.”/p pSo, while offensive and even racist speech is constitutionally protected, shouting an epithet at a particular student or pinning an offensive sign to their dorm room door can constitute impermissible harassment, not free speech. Antisemitic or anti-Palestinian speech targeted at individuals because of their ethnicity or national origin constitutes invidious discrimination, and cannot be tolerated. Physically intimidating students by blocking their movements or pursuing them aggressively is unprotected iconduct/i, not protected ispeech/i. It should go without saying that violence is never an acceptable protest tactic./p pSpeech that is inot/i targeted at an individual or individuals because of their ethnicity or national origin but merely expresses impassioned views about Israel or Palestine is not discrimination and should be protected. The only exception for such untargeted speech is where it is so severe or pervasive that it denies students equal access to an education — an extremely demanding standard that has almost never been met by pure speech. One can criticize Israel’s actions, even in vituperative terms, without being antisemitic. And by the same token, one can support Israel’s actions in Gaza and condemn Hamas without being anti-Muslim. Administrators must resist the tendency to equate criticism with discrimination. Speech condoning violence can be condemned, to be sure. But it cannot be the basis for punishment, without more./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardSchools can announce and enforce reasonable content-neutral protest policies but they must leave ample room for students to express themselves/h2 /div piThird/i, universities can announce and enforce reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on protest activity to ensure that essential college functions can continue. Such restrictions must be content neutral, meaning that they do not depend on the substance of what is being communicated, but rather where, when, or how it is being communicated. Protests can be limited to certain areas of campus and certain times of the day, for example. These policies must, however, leave ample room for students to speak to and to be heard by other members of the community. And the rules must not only be content neutral on their face; they must also be applied in a content-neutral manner. If a university has routinely tolerated violations of its rules, and suddenly enforces them harshly in a specific context, singling out particular views for punishment, the fact that the policy is formally neutral on its face does not make viewpoint-based enforcement permissible./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardSchools must recognize that armed police on campus can endanger students and are a measure of last resort/h2 /div piFourth/i, when enforcement of content-neutral rules may be warranted, college administrators should involve police only as a last resort, after all other efforts have been exhausted. Inviting armed police into a campus protest environment, even a volatile one, can create unacceptable risks for all students and staff. University officials must also be cognizant of the history of law enforcement using inappropriate and excessive force on communities of color, including Black, Brown, and immigrant students. Moreover, arresting peaceful protestors is also likely to escalate, not calm, the tensions on campus — as events of the past week have made abundantly clear./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardSchools must resist the pressures placed on them by politicians seeking to exploit campus tensions/h2 /div piFinally/i, campus leaders must resist the pressures placed on them by politicians seeking to exploit campus tensions to advance their own notoriety or partisan agendas. Recent congressional hearings have featured disgraceful attacks by members of Congress on academic freedom and freedom of speech. Universities must stand up to such intimidation, and defend the principles of academic freedom so essential to their integrity and mission./p pThe Supreme Court has forcefully a href=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/169/rejected/a the premise that, “because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large.”/p p“Quite to the contrary,” the court stated, “the vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools.” In keeping with these values, we urge you to resist the temptation to silence students or faculty members because powerful voices deem their views offensive. Instead, we urge you to defend the university’s core mission of encouraging debate, fostering dissent, and preparing the future leaders of our pluralistic society to tolerate even profound differences of opinion./p

pThe Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/doe-v-mckessoniMckesson v. Doe/i/a, that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence./p pAcross the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardWhat Happened in Mckesson v. Doe?/h2 /div pThe case, a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/doe-v-mckesson#press-releasesiMckesson v. Doe/i/a, was brought by a police officer against a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/deray-mckesson-on-the-threat-to-protesters-rightsDeRay Mckesson/a, a prominent civil rights activist. The officer claims that Mckesson should be liable for personal injuries he suffered after an unknown individual — not Mckesson — threw a “rock-like” object at the officer during a 2016 protest of the killing of Alton Sterling by Baton Rouge, Louisiana police./p pThe officer does not claim that Mckesson encouraged or even knew about the rock-throwing. Rather than sue the rock-thrower, however, the officer is suing Mckesson on the theory that he allegedly organized the protest and in turn had a duty to protect every person there. In doing so, the argument goes, he “should have known” an assault could occur./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/doe-v-mckesson#press-releases target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1600 height=1066 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358.jpg 1600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-768x512.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-1536x1023.jpg 1536w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-400x267.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-600x400.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-800x533.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-1000x666.jpg 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-1200x800.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/97fe74bcd4689ea5205a3761b37ff358-1400x933.jpg 1400w sizes=(max-width: 1600px) 100vw, 1600px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/doe-v-mckesson#press-releases target=_blank Mckesson v. Doe /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/doe-v-mckesson#press-releases target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletCan a protest leader be held legally responsible for injuries inflicted by an unidentified person’s violent act at the protest?/p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/doe-v-mckesson#press-releases target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pThe idea is that a protest organizer can be held responsible for what a stranger present at the protest does to someone else, not because the organizer asked or meant for them to do it, but merely because it was foreseeable that they might. If this theory of “negligent protest” were accepted, it would become far more risky to organize a protest. The ACLU has argued that this standard of liability violates the First Amendment in part because it would pose an unconstitutional burden on our right to protest./p pDespite this, and after several years of procedural back-and-forth between courts, the Fifth Circuit ruled in 2023 that the negligence claim against McKesson did not violate the First Amendment. Instead, the Fifth Circuit held that a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence./p pRecognizing how this decision squarely violates First Amendment fundamentals, the ACLU and co-counsel filed a a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/doe-v-mckesson?document=plaintiff-applicant-brief-certified-question#press-releasespetition for certiorari/a, asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Fifth Circuit’s obviously wrong ruling. Unfortunately, the court a href=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-373_8njq.pdfdenied our petition/a./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardWhat Does the Supreme Court’s Denial of Review Mean for Our Right to Protest?/h2 /div pWhile the Supreme Court does not generally explain why it declines to hear a case — and it can do so for any number of reasons — Justice Sonia Sotomayor a href=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-373_8njq.pdfwrote a statement/a accompanying the denial that might explain the reason in this case: the Supreme Court has already settled this question, so the law is not in need of further clarification./p pIn her statement, Justice Sotomayor explains that, in 2023, shortly after the Fifth Circuit’s decision, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/counterman-v-coloradoiCounterman v. Colorado/i/ai, /iwhere it confirmed that negligence is never a sufficient basis for imposing liability on political expression and association. In fact, in iCounterman/i, the court made it explicitly clear that, when it comes to drawing the line between unprotected incitement and the kinds of “strong protests against the government and prevailing social order” that lie at the heart of the First Amendment, a showing of intent is required. That’s a much higher standard than negligence, which asks only whether someone who didn’t know what impact their speech would have ishould /ihave known the possible effect. Intent, in contrast, requires that the speaker knew about, wanted, and aimed for the resulting harm./p pJustice Sotomayor concluded her statement by emphasizing that while the Fifth Circuit did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in iCounterman /iwhen it issued its opinion, the lower courts in this case (and in general) now do, and are expected to fairly apply that decision in future proceedings./p div class=wp-heading mb-8 h2 id= class=wp-heading-h2 with-standardHas Our Right to Protest Changed? /h2 /div pSome people have suggested that the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear this case means that our right to protest has been effectively abolished in three U.S. states. That’s not accurate./p pWhile it is true that the Fifth Circuit’s erroneous decision has not been vacated, and technically could be invoked against protest organizers in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, it is important to understand two things./p pFirst, separate from the First Amendment problem, there’s the question of whether a “negligent protest” claim even exists under a state’s civil law. In iMckesson/i, the Louisiana Supreme Court said yes, but the high courts in Texas and Mississippi haven’t said the same. That means, the theory of “negligent protest” in iMckesson /iis specific to Louisiana state law./p pSecond, when it comes to the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has made it explicitly clear in many other cases that negligence is too low a threshold for imposing liability on one person for another person’s violence or other illegal acts at a protest./p pTo take just one example, in 1982, the court held that while the Constitution does not protect violence, it does limit the government’s ability to place responsibility for that violence onto peaceful protest leaders who did not direct or intend it. That seminal civil rights case, iNAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co./i, has been cited repeatedly to ensure robust speech protections, including to a href=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-kentucky-lawsuit/trump-wins-dismissal-of-inciting-to-riot-lawsuit-over-2016-rally-idUSKCN1LR22Bdismiss a lawsuit/a against then-candidate Donald Trump for violent acts committed by others at a campaign rally and to a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/south-dakota-governor-caves-on-attempted-efforts-to-silence-pipeline-protesters/challenge/a efforts to stifle Keystone XL pipeline protests. As Justice Sotomayor’s statement highlighted, the court recently reaffirmed these rules in iCounterman/i./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/south-dakota-governor-caves-on-attempted-efforts-to-silence-pipeline-protesters target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1200 height=628 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/7218730dbc6777f6d6b6043a99ade53a.jpg class=attachment-4x3_full size-4x3_full alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/7218730dbc6777f6d6b6043a99ade53a.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/7218730dbc6777f6d6b6043a99ade53a-768x402.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/7218730dbc6777f6d6b6043a99ade53a-400x209.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/7218730dbc6777f6d6b6043a99ade53a-600x314.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/7218730dbc6777f6d6b6043a99ade53a-800x419.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/7218730dbc6777f6d6b6043a99ade53a-1000x523.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/south-dakota-governor-caves-on-attempted-efforts-to-silence-pipeline-protesters target=_blank South Dakota Governor Caves on Attempted Efforts to Silence Pipeline Protesters /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/south-dakota-governor-caves-on-attempted-efforts-to-silence-pipeline-protesters target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletThe state's quick retreat should serve as a lesson for other legislatures: if you criminalize protest, we will sue./p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/south-dakota-governor-caves-on-attempted-efforts-to-silence-pipeline-protesters target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pHowever, since the Supreme Court did not officially reverse the Fifth Circuit’s decision, it is possible that a court in Louisiana may decide to apply the Fifth Circuit’s logic. Say, for example, that a small crowd of people act violently at a protest in Louisiana and the protest organizer — who had no connection to the violence — is subsequently sued for negligence. The lower court should heed Justice Sotomayor#8217;s statement, correctly apply iCounterman/i, and dismiss this claim for violating the First Amendment. But it is possible that a lower court would still apply the Fifth Circuit’s decision, issued prior to iCounterman. /iIf that were to happen, the ACLU is interested in fighting alongside the organizer to ensure that the correct rule ultimately applies, and that the Fifth Circuit’s clearly erroneous decision does not govern anywhere./p pSince our founding, efforts to silence dissent have emerged in moments of mass protest, like what we find ourselves in today. However, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld our right to protest and our right to be responsible only for our own actions. Today, the ACLU urges the lower courts to continue protecting our rights, and to deny the Fifth Circuit’s deeply misguided theory from gaining any traction. No one should be afraid to express dissent, to advocate for change, or to support causes they believe in./p pa href=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCR7yfxnwWAPlay the video/a/p img width=1334 height=708 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM.png class=attachment-16x9_1400 size-16x9_1400 alt=A photo of activist DeRay Mckesson. decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM.png 1334w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM-768x408.png 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM-400x212.png 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM-600x318.png 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM-800x425.png 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM-1000x531.png 1000w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Screen-Shot-2024-04-22-at-5.08.05-PM-1200x637.png 1200w sizes=(max-width: 1334px) 100vw, 1334px /

State legislation is crucially connected to our civil liberties, and can either expand our rights or chip away at them. These bills touch nearly every aspect of our lives. From Roe v. Wade and the Dobbs case that overturned the right to an abortion, to Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws banning interracial marriage, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized marriage equality across the country — many Supreme Court cases that address all of our civil rights come from laws that were passed in state legislatures.

With an increasingly conservative Supreme Court and federal court system, as well as a Congress whose members are constantly in gridlock, state legislatures offer a more accessible way to enact meaningful change. State lawmakers are easier to contact regarding policies that should be passed, and also frequently go on to run for federal office, or become governors. What’s more, state actions can lead to national impact if many similar policies are passed around the country, signaling national trends.

With many state legislative sessions currently underway, learn more about this important political process, how it affects your rights, and how to get involved.

Each state has its own legislative body in which lawmakers work together to pass policies — just like Congress does at the federal level. Every state except for Nebraska has a legislature composed of two chambers, or a ​​bicameral legislature — which must work together to get a majority of favorable votes and pass bills in both chambers. While the exact names and powers of these entities depend on the specific states, once a bill is passed, it will be sent to the governor to be signed into law or may face a veto.

Most state legislatures are made up of lawmakers who meet to pass laws during legislative sessions each year. If circumstances arise that require lawmakers to address legislation outside of these regular sessions, a special session can be called. There are also several states with full-time legislatures whose lawmakers meet year-round. Lawmakers often engage in this work part time, and are often not adequately paid.

The length and timing of state legislative sessions differ from state to state. Some legislatures are in session for many months, while others only take a few. The sessions that aren’t full time usually take place in the first half of the year, traditionally beginning in January.

The laws that are passed during state legislative sessions run the gamut and can affect a number of constituents’ rights, including reproductive freedom, voting protections, access to gender-affirming care, and others. But this influence goes both ways. Presumably, the prospective laws should reflect the majority opinions of individuals in the state, with lawmakers acting as advocates for these interests. Many bills and policies that make it to state legislatures are promoted by advocacy organizations or interest groups who work with lawmakers to get them passed. The ACLU is among these entities, and is the only organization focusing on civil rights and civil liberties that has an office with staff in every state, working with local policymakers.

There are many decisions happening in states around the country that put our rights in the balance. Without the federal protections from Roe v. Wade, many lawmakers are attacking abortion rights at the state level. There has also been a surge of state laws introduced that block trans youth from receiving gender-affirming care, censor student free speech, and suppress people’s voting powers.

But the ACLU will never stop fighting for your rights. We have taken on countless state-level legal battles to protect people’s liberties — and have seen many victories along the way.

The ACLU always encourages our community to play a hands-on role in the fight for our freedoms. Across the country, we implement strategies that empower voters around the country to stay informed about local races and elect candidates whose interests align with theirs. We’re also mapping state-level attacks on LGBTQ rights so you can keep track of your own area’s legislation — and fight back accordingly.

Supporters can get in touch with the ACLU affiliate offices in their state to learn about local issues they are taking action on. Many affiliate websites offer primers on state legislatures. Our grassroots effort People Power also allows volunteers to engage with state-level actions in their area.

To learn about your state’s legislature, identify the lawmakers who represent you and what their stances are on the issues you care about most. State lawmakers and governors will usually highlight the issues they care about, and the legislative work they’ve done, wherever they are able. With most state legislative sessions underway right now, you can also keep track of policies that are being voted on. This will let you know your legislature’s priorities and if your lawmakers are fulfilling their campaign promises to constituents. Remember, the key players involved in the legislative process are voted into office by you. You have the power in numbers to elect or replace representatives based on whether they are advocating for your interests.

For more than 100 years the American Civil Liberties Union has defended the right to free speech – no matter the speaker, and regardless of whether we agree with their views.

The defense and protection of free speech and expression span many forms and issues at the ACLU. In the last year alone, it has included efforts to actively oppose book bans; represent educators fighting classroom censorship aimed at suppressing important race perspectives; defend protesters responding to police shootings or overseas wars; protect the ability of Indigenous students to wear tribal regalia at their graduation ceremonies; and fight against retaliatory arrests for protected speech.

While the faces of the free speech movement continue to change, the significance of defending free speech remains unchanged. This work lies at the heart of the ACLU’s core principles and values.

On March 18, the ACLU appeared before the U.S. Supreme Court to argue another free speech case of great significance. In this case, the ACLU represented the National Rifle Association (NRA) against government overreach and censorship. Some may have wondered why the ACLU was representing the NRA, since the ACLU clearly opposes the NRA on gun control and the role of firearms in society. In fact, we abhor many of the group’s goals, strategies, and tactics. So, the reality that we have joined forces, notwithstanding those disagreements, reflects the importance of the First Amendment principles at stake in this case.

The ACLU made the decision to represent the NRA in this case because we are deeply concerned that if regulators can threaten the NRA for their political views in New York state, they can come after the ACLU and allied organizations in places where our agendas are unpopular.

If reelected, President Trump has already promised to use the power of the government to go after his political adversaries. In a second Trump administration, opposition from the ACLU and its allied organizations will be top of mind for political leaders who may seek to go after their rivals the way New York targeted the NRA. The principal issue at stake in this case is one in which the ACLU deeply believes: preventing government blacklists of advocacy groups. Indeed, the timing couldn’t be better for drawing a bright line that would help bind a future Trump administration and other government officials who misuse their power.

In this case, the ACLU argues that Maria Vullo, New York’s former chief financial regulator, threatened to use her regulatory power over banks and insurance companies to coerce them into denying basic financial services to the NRA and, in Vullo’s own words, “other gun promotion” groups. The ACLU argues that coercing private parties to blacklist the NRA because of its advocacy violates the First Amendment, just as punishing the group directly for its “gun promotion” views would. And if New York can do this to the NRA, Texas or Florida could use the same tactics against groups advocating immigrants’ rights or the right to abortion.

The NRA has a right, like all other advocacy organizations, to pursue their mission free from reprisals by government officials who disagree with its political viewpoint. The government should not be able to evade the Constitution by doing indirectly what it plainly cannot do directly. History has, consistently, underscored the importance of this protection.

Nevertheless, we’ve faced criticism of our representation of the NRA on the theory that even if the NRA wins in this Supreme Court case, officials will still try to stifle the speech of people on the left, and courts will side with them. These critics are correct in one sense — those in power have an unfortunate tendency to try to stifle the speech of those with whom they disagree, and we will certainly continue to bring new cases to stop them. But the critics are wrong about the impact of the precedents we win, especially at the Supreme Court. People of every ideological stripe benefit with every decision vindicating the right to freedom of speech.

When we defend clients with positions with which we disagree, or even abhor, it’s because we are defending values crucial to the work of civil rights advocates in the past and present. These values include doctrines that protect our rights — at the local, state, and federal level — to join economic boycotts, hold protests, and publicly dissent. In fact, a significant amount of the ACLU’s modern day First Amendment advocacy work is predicated on principles stemming from landmark civil rights legal victories of the 1960s and 70s.

Take one of our most controversial cases, which is also one of the most important cases in the entire First Amendment canon — our defense of the Ku Klux Klan. In 1969, Klan member Clarence Brandenburg addressed a rally held in Ohio where he called for “revenge” against the government and Black individuals. He was convicted of violating the state’s Criminal Syndicalism law, which prohibited speech that “advocate[d] … the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform.”

The ACLU represented Brandenburg at the Supreme Court, which reversed his conviction. The court ruled that Brandenburg’s speech was protected by the First Amendment, and that the government can make it a crime to advocate illegal conduct only “where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Brandenburg’s speech was reprehensible. But in preserving his First Amendment rights, the ACLU helped establish critical protection for all dissidents’ and activists’ speech. Before Brandenburg, governments had regularly charged their critics with advocating illegal activity. The Brandenburg precedent has been used to defend all kinds of political speech; indeed, today the ACLU is applying the decision in a Supreme Court case defending civil rights activist DeRay Mckesson, who took part in a Black Lives Matter protest in Louisiana.

Simply put, the right to speak freely applies to everyone. Otherwise, any elected official would be able to decide whose speech is acceptable, “safe,” or politically palatable. That is why we defend speech we hate. It’s why in 1978 the ACLU represented a neo-Nazi group that sought to demonstrate in Skokie, a Chicago suburb with a substantial Jewish population, including many survivors of the Holocaust. Notwithstanding the odious views of the protesters, we believed that once government officials are empowered to block demonstrations because they disagree with their message, the right to protest would be illusory. The Supreme Court agreed, and that decision ensures that city, state, and federal officials cannot suppress protests because they disapprove of their message.

The power to censor the neo-Nazis would have opened the door to censoring any protester, including civil rights activists or anti-war protesters. The ACLU’s position in this case was famously controversial and Aryeh Neier, the ACLU’s executive director in the 70s and a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany, withstood withering criticism. But it was the right thing to do.

The ACLU knew in the past, as we recognize now, that if the First Amendment protected only popular ideas, it would serve little purpose. If we do not take a principled stand on behalf of those with whom we disagree, we weaken our case the next time we defend those fighting for the values we share. At our core, the ACLU believes that rights and liberties are universal and “indivisible” – meaning they attach to all people, not just our friends.

Our mandate to advance all rights and liberties for all people was forged more than 100 years ago when we combatted political repression against dissidents, immigrants, workers, and other so-called radicals. Over the years the ACLU has defended the free speech rights of countless individuals and groups with which we disagree. We defended their speech rights — despite our disagreements — because we believe in free speech, and because we realize that once you chip away at one person’s rights, everyone’s rights are at risk.

Defending speech we hate is admittedly a controversial part of our mandate. Some of our allies and supporters don’t always agree with this stance. In fact, there are even some ACLU staff, leaders, and volunteers who believe that defending speech we hate does more harm than good. Some believe we shouldn’t use our limited resources defending individuals and causes with whom we disagree. Reasonable people can — and always will — disagree on the ACLU’s stance, including our own staff. Yet this is what we have done for over a century and, as the ACLU’s executive director, I respectfully believe it’s the right thing to do — for free speech and for the ACLU.

Ours is an organization that increasingly reflects all of America. We celebrate our growing diversity, just as we embrace the dissent and debate that attend it. Our commitment to free speech extends to dissent within our ranks. Dissent and debate are healthy for society — and for a civil liberties organization. This principle has long been the lifeblood of the ACLU. And it is that commitment that underlies our defense of the NRA’s free speech rights at the Supreme Court.

Can a bakery that objects to marriage equality refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple for their wedding? This question, or some variant thereof, has occupied courts even before marriages for same-sex couples were legally recognized. In June 2023, in 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Supreme Court addressed this question in a case asking whether a wedding website design business could refuse to design websites for weddings of same-sex couples. The court ruled for the business. But properly understood, the decision does not license discrimination; it merely recognizes that where a business will not provide a particular product or service to anyone, it has the right to refuse it to a gay couple. That exception should not apply to most applications of anti-discrimination laws, which require only equal treatment, and do not require businesses to provide any particular service or product. As I explain in more detail in this Yale Law Journal article and as we argue in this model brief, 303 Creative does not create a First Amendment right to discriminate.

Under Colorado’s public accommodations law, businesses that choose to serve the public at large cannot turn people away because of their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or other protected characteristics. 303 Creative claimed that because its service is expressive and its owner objects to same-sex marriage, it can’t be required to provide website design services for same-sex weddings.

In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled for the business, concluding that Colorado’s application of its public accommodations law violated the designer’s First Amendment rights. In our view, the decision was wrong. We submitted a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that the Constitution did not give the business a right to refuse to comply with Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. But it’s important to understand the limits of the decision.

The case was brought by 303 Creative, a website design business, and its owner, Lorie Smith. Smith argued that Colorado’s law violated her First Amendment rights by compelling her, if she opened a wedding website design business, to serve both gay and heterosexual couples seeking to marry. The business had never actually designed a wedding website. Still, Smith brought the case before doing so, arguing that she was deterred from pursuing the business out of fear that Colorado’s public accommodations law would require her to create websites celebrating marriages that she opposed.

Because the case was brought before any actual application of the law, it was unclear what the designer would or wouldn’t do, or how the law would apply to her. As a result, the court’s opinions treat the case as if it presented two very different questions.

According to the majority opinion, the case involved a business owner unwilling to design for anyone a website whose content contravened her beliefs by expressly celebrating marriages of same-sex couples. It did not involve a business that refused services to customers based on their sexual orientation. Rather, Smith objected to the content of the message the state was compelling, not the identity of the customers. And equally significantly, the majority viewed Colorado’s purpose in applying its public accommodations law in such circumstances—where the business did not object to the identity of the customers but to the message requested—to be in suppressing disfavored ideas about marriage and compelling expression of the state’s favored viewpoint. In this particular application, the majority concluded, the business objected only to the message, and the state sought to enforce the law to compel a message–not to prohibit discriminatory sales on the basis of identity.

The dissenting opinions saw the case entirely differently. It viewed it as involving a website designer who objected to making any wedding website for a same-sex couple, regardless of its content. In its view, 303 Creative would refuse to make a website for a same-sex couple even if the website was identical to that of a different-sex couple. In its view, then, the designer sought a right to discriminate not based on the content of any particular message, but based on the customer’s sexual orientation. It correctly argued that the law has long been settled that the First Amendment does not permit businesses, even those whose services are expressive, to discriminate based on identity.

In essence, the majority and the dissent decided different cases. Indeed, when the dissent accused the majority of permitting businesses to discriminate on the basis of identity, the majority strongly rejected that conclusion, saying “We do no such thing.”

One way of understanding the difference is to imagine two paradigm cases. A t-shirt manufacturer that objects to making a t-shirt that says “Support Gay Marriage” has the right to refuse to make that t-shirt for a gay customer where his objection is to the message, not the identity of the customer. If the t-shirt manufacturer would not make a shirt with those words for anyone, it need not make one for a particular customer because they are gay. But at the same time, the t-shirt manufacturer could not refuse to sell a shirt saying “Love Marriage” to a customer because he was gay or sought to wear it to celebrate his marriage. If the business sells such shirts to others, it has to sell it to all. Nor could the t-shirt designer put up a sign saying “We Don’t Serve Gays.” In short, the decision permits a denial of service based on the message requested, but not based on who the product is for.

Understood in this light, the decision should have minimal impact on the enforcement of public accommodations and anti-discrimination laws. It recognizes a right to refuse service only where a business objects to expressing a particular message for anyone, not where it objects to serving certain customers because of their identity.

Because that is not the situation in the vast majority of instances in which antidiscrimination laws are applied, the decision leaves standing what the court previously described as the “general rule”—namely, that religious and philosophical objections “do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.”

In short, the decision in 303 Creative does not mean that a caterer, florist, or baker can refuse to provide food, flowers, or a cake for a wedding merely because the participants are of the same sex and the vendor objects to the implicit message providing those services sends. Instead, it is only when a public accommodations law compels speech that a business owner objects to providing for anyone—and does so in order to excise disfavored ideas, that it violates the First Amendment.

pMore than 60 years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment bars the government from coercing private entities to punish speech that the government disfavors. Just as the government can’t directly punish or censor speech it disagrees with, it cannot do so indirectly by coercing private parties to do the same./p pHistory underscores the importance of this free speech protection. Government officials have all too often enlisted private parties—from the White Citizens’ Councils of the Jim Crow South to the blacklists of Communists in the McCarthy era—to punish those with whom they disagree. New York’s efforts to punish the National Rifle Association, at issue before the Supreme Court in a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vulloiNational Rifle Association v. Vullo/i/a, follow in the footsteps of those earlier censorship efforts./p div class=alignfullwidth mb-8 wp-pullquote div class= wp-pullquote-inner pThe ACLU disagrees sharply with the NRA on many issues, yet we are representing the group in this case because of the First Amendment principles at stake./p /div /div pThe ACLU disagrees sharply with the NRA on many issues, yet we are representing the group in this case because of the First Amendment principles at stake. We argue that Maria Vullo, a New York state regulator, threatened to use her regulatory power over banks and insurance companies to coerce them into denying basic financial services to the NRA and, in Vullo’s own words, “other gun promotion” groups. Vullo’s threats were expressly based on her disagreement with the NRA’s advocacy. And they worked. Several insurance companies and banks refused to work with the NRA out of fear of reprisals from New York regulators. The ACLU urges the Supreme Court to hold that coercing third parties to break ties with the NRA because of its advocacy violates the First Amendment./p pEven those who oppose government censorship may be sympathetic to New York’s efforts to shut down the NRA. The NRA is dedicated to promoting guns, which play an outsized role in violence and death in this country. The ACLU does not support the NRA’s mission. In fact, we directly oppose the NRA and support the government’s power to adopt sensible tools, like public carry permits and disarming persons subject to domestic violence protective orders. While it#8217;s understandable that Vullo wanted to address the gun violence epidemic, government censorship wasn#8217;t a constitutional response to the problem./p div class=alignfullwidth mb-8 wp-pullquote div class= wp-pullquote-inner pThe right to advocate views the government opposes safeguards our ability to organize for the country we want to see./p /div /div pThe NRA’s case is hardly the first time government officials have sought to use private parties to penalize those with whom they disagree. Our nation’s history is replete with examples. And when the government threatens businesses in this way, the businesses often go along. As summed up by a slogan during the McCarthy Era: “Why buy yourself a headache?”/p pDuring the McCarthy era, from the late 1940s to 60s, the government regularly pressured private entities to fire people it perceived as connected with the Communist Party. The FBI and the House Committee on Un-American Activities delivered the names of employees who had alleged connections to “subversive” organizations, or even subscriptions to their publications, to private employers like defense contractors, universities, newspapers, and major corporations such as General Electric and U.S. Steel. Employers that failed to fire these employees faced loss of lucrative government contracts, necessary licenses, targeted investigations, and public smearing./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=700 height=350 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374.jpg 700w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374-400x200.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/29cdadc17d83f5ef0a78a0e3eca67374-600x300.jpg 600w sizes=(max-width: 700px) 100vw, 700px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo target=_blank National Rifle Association v. Vullo /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletOn January 9th, 2024, the American Civil Liberties Union filed its opening brief on behalf of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in National.../p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-rifle-association-v-vullo target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pThe ACLU itself has been the target of such efforts. In the late 1930s, Jersey City Mayor Frank Hague bragged that the reason the ACLU and the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) had been unable to book a single private hall for meetings or speakers was because the hall owners are his “friends” and knew that he did “not approve of un-American groups coming into Jersey City.” The one hall owner who did rent his hall to the CIO for a meeting was then charged with a building violation. When asked about the violation at trial, Hague responded “Any port in a storm, Counselor”—effectively acknowledging that the violation was in retaliation for renting the private hall to a disfavored speaker./p pThe ACLU’s predecessor, the National Civil Liberties Bureau, confronted similar efforts during World War I. When the Justice Department attempted to put the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) out of business by filing criminal charges against more than 100 members who had called for labor strikes, accusing them of undermining the war effort, the National Civil Liberties Bureau placed an advertisement seeking funds for the IWW’s “right of a fair trial.” The government responded by coercing iThe New Republic/i, a privately-run media company, to support its goal by threatening to revoke the magazine’s second-class mailing privileges if it reprinted the message./p pSouthern states turned to this tactic in their resistance to racial integration established in a href=https://www.aclu.org/podcast/school-segregation-65-years-after-brown-v-board-ep-46iBrown v. Board of Education/i/a. Some states mandated public disclosure of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s (NAACP) members, and relied on private entities that shared the state’s commitment to maintaining white supremacy, such as the White Citizens’ Councils, to publicize the disclosures to private business owners who were expected to then punish those named. As a result, NAACP members were fired, denied credit, prohibited from purchasing goods, evicted or had their home loans foreclosed, and subjected to threats of and actual violence. This public-private partnership became a blueprint for how to use racialized violence as an “economic cold war” to render both Black and white supporters of the NAACP “destitute” and undermine their ability to advocate for racial justice./p pNor is this tactic a relic of the past. In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis directed the state agency in charge of liquor licensing to see if it could stop private entities hosting performances of “A Drag Queen Christmas.” After the shows went forward, a non-profit theater venue in Orlando and the Hyatt Regency Miami faced actions to revoke their liquor licenses for allegedly violating laws prohibiting lewdness, vulgar exposure of sexual organs, and obscene performances—despite the agency’s own undercover agents attending and reporting that there were no “lewd acts” or “exposure of genital organs.”/p pMaria Vullo followed the same playbook. As the state’s top financial regulator, in coordination with then-Governor Andrew Cuomo, she expressly targeted the NRA for its “gun promotion” advocacy and urged all the banks and insurance companies she regulates to refuse to do business with the NRA. She offered leniency to one insurer for legal infractions if it would cut its ties to the NRA, and extracted promises from the NRA’s three largest insurance partners never to provide “affinity insurance” to the group’s members ever again./p piNRA v. Vullo /iisn’t just about the NRA. It’s about all of our First Amendment rights to advocate for causes we believe in, without being targeted by public-private ventures of retaliation. If New York can do this to the NRA, then Oklahoma could similarly penalize criminal justice reformers advocating for bail reform, and Texas could target climate change organizations advancing the view that all fossil fuel extraction must end. The right to advocate views the government opposes safeguards our ability to organize for the country we want to see. It’s a principle the ACLU has defended for more than 100 years, and one we will continue to protect from government censorship of all kinds, whether we agree or disagree with the views of those being targeted./p

pFirst, Donald Trump and right-wing extremists attacked government trainings on racism and sexism. Then the far right tried to censor classroom instruction on racism and sexism. Next, they banned books about BIPOC and LGBTQ lives. Today, the extreme right’s latest attack is aimed at dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs./p pIn 2023, the far right introduced at least a href=https://www.chronicle.com/article/here-are-the-states-where-lawmakers-are-seeking-to-ban-colleges-dei-efforts?emailConfirmed=trueamp;supportSignUp=trueamp;supportForgotPassword=trueamp;email=lwatson%40aclu.orgamp;success=trueamp;code=successamp;bc_nonce=7dgurpqns0w1d7cyy44vqy65 bills/a to limit DEI in higher education in 25 states and the U.S. Congress. Eight bills became law. If this assault on our constitutional rights feels familiar, that’s because it is. It was last seen in 2020 when Trump-aligned politicians fought to pass unconstitutional laws aimed at censoring student and faculty speech about race, racism, sex and sexism. The ACLU challenged these laws in three states, but today, anti-DEI efforts are the new frontier in the fight to end the erasure of marginalized communities./p pDEI programs recruit and retain BIPOC, LGBTQ+, and other underrepresented faculty and students to repair decades of discriminatory policies and practices that excluded them from higher education. The far right, however, claims that DEI programs universally promote undeserving people who only advance because they a href=https://twitter.com/JDVance1/status/1742925449465135262check a box/a. Anti-DEI activists like Christopher Rufo consistently frame their attack as a strike against “identity politics,” and have a href=https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1371540368714428416?lang=enweaponized/a the term “DEI#8221; to reference any ideas and policies they disagree with, especially those that address systemic racism or sexism./p pThis attack on DEI is part of a larger a href=https://journals.law.harvard.edu/crcl/wp-content/uploads/sites/80/2023/09/HLC208_Watson.pdfbacklash/a against racial justice efforts that ignited after the 2020 killings of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor. At the time, workplaces, schools, and other institutions announced plans to expand DEI efforts and to incorporate anti-racism principles in their communities. In response, far-right activists, led by Rufo and supported by right-wing think tanks such as The Manhattan Institute, The Claremont Institute, and The Heritage Foundation, went on the offensive./p pLeveraging Fox News and other mainstream media outlets, Rufo and his supporters sought to manufacture hysteria around the inclusion of critical race theory in schools and workplaces. After a 2020 appearance on Fox News where Rufo misrepresented the nature of federal trainings on oppression, white privilege, and intersectionality as indoctrination of critical race theory in our public spaces, Rufo convinced former President Trump to end federal DEI training. Rufo’s goal was to limit discourse, instruction, and research that refuted the false assertion that racism is not real in America – and he succeeded. Just three weeks later, a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/the-trump-administration-is-banning-talk-about-race-and-genderTrump issued Executive Order 13950/a, which banned federal trainings on systemic racism and sexism. This Executive Order served as the template for most of the educational gag orders, or bills introduced to limit instruction on systemic sexism and racism in 40 states, 20 of which are now law./p pThe ACLU has consistently opposed efforts to censor classroom instruction on racism and sexism, including in Florida where some of the most egregious attacks on DEI, critical race theory and inclusive education have been mounted. Following the far right’s “anti-wokeism” playbook, in April 2022, Florida Governor Ron Desantis signed the Stop W.O.K.E. Act, which seeks to ban training or instruction on systemic racism and sexism in workplaces, K-12 schools, and higher education. The ACLU, the ACLU of Florida and our co-counsel challenged the law, claiming it violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by imposing viewpoint-based restrictions on instructors and students in higher education, and fails to state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable. A federal judge has blocked it from being enforced in public universities across the state./p div class=mp-md wp-link div class=wp-link__img-wrapper a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/lessons-learned-from-our-classroom-censorship-win-against-floridas-stop-w-o-k-e-act target=_blank tabindex=-1 img width=1200 height=628 src=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/a826b64d446092dcdc923dd2a83f8cad.jpg class=attachment-original size-original alt= decoding=async loading=lazy srcset=https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/a826b64d446092dcdc923dd2a83f8cad.jpg 1200w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/a826b64d446092dcdc923dd2a83f8cad-768x402.jpg 768w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/a826b64d446092dcdc923dd2a83f8cad-400x209.jpg 400w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/a826b64d446092dcdc923dd2a83f8cad-600x314.jpg 600w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/a826b64d446092dcdc923dd2a83f8cad-800x419.jpg 800w, https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/a826b64d446092dcdc923dd2a83f8cad-1000x523.jpg 1000w sizes=(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px / /a /div div class=wp-link__title a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/lessons-learned-from-our-classroom-censorship-win-against-floridas-stop-w-o-k-e-act target=_blank Lessons Learned from Our Classroom Censorship Win Against Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E. Act /a /div div class=wp-link__description a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/lessons-learned-from-our-classroom-censorship-win-against-floridas-stop-w-o-k-e-act target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7-mobile is-size-6-tabletHere’s what the judge’s order could mean for challenges to censorship efforts nationwide./p /a /div div class=wp-link__source p-4 px-6-tablet a href=https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/lessons-learned-from-our-classroom-censorship-win-against-floridas-stop-w-o-k-e-act target=_blank tabindex=-1 p class=is-size-7Source: American Civil Liberties Union/p /a /div /div pInstead of ceasing to censor free speech, the far right pivoted to target DEI programs. For example, Florida passed Senate Bill 266 in April 2023. This law would expand the Stop W.O.K.E. Act’s prohibition on training and instruction on racism and sexism, seeking to eliminate DEI programs and heavily restrict certain college majors related to DEI. Just last month, the Florida State Board of Education moved forward with regulations to limit the use of public funds for DEI efforts in Florida’s 28 state colleges. The State Board also replaced the Principles of Sociology course, which was previously required, with an American History course to avoid “radical woke ideologies.”/p pLed by the same far-right leaders, including Rufo and various think-tanks, these anti-DEI efforts utilize the same methods as the attack on critical race theory. They represent yet another attempt to re-whitewash America’s history of racial subjugation, and to reverse efforts to pursue racial justice—or any progress at all. Anti-DEI rhetoric has been used to a href=https://twitter.com/JDVance1/status/1742925449465135262invalidate/a immunological research supporting the COVID-19 vaccine, conclusions by economists on mass migration, and even the January 6 insurrection. But these false claims are not what DEI is about. By definition equity means levelling the playing field so qualified people from underrepresented backgrounds have a fair chance to succeed. We cannot let a loud fringe movement convince us otherwise./p pIn its attacks on DEI, the far right undermines not only racial justice efforts, but also violates our right to free speech and free association. Today, the ACLU is determined to push back on anti-DEI efforts just as we fought efforts to censor instruction on systemic racism and sexism from schools./p div class=rss-cta__titleWe need you with us to keep fighting/diva href=https://action.aclu.org/give/now class=rss-cta__buttonDonate today/a/div