vol. 30, no. 6

American

Cuil Liberties

Union

Volume XXX

Political Freedom

SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE, 1965

San Francisco City College is not without its free speech

problems. Until a change hastened by the arrests described

below, non-student speakers could appear only at 11 o'clock

on Tuesdays and Thursdays and then only if such meetings

and speakers were scheduled by "recognized organizations

through the office of the Dean

of Men. and student activities."

There was also no place on

campus where an open meeting

could be held. :

Unapproved Meeting

Several campus groups have

been active in protesting these

restrictive regulations on speech

and the administration had stated

that the question of greater free

speech rights was under consid-

eration. However, some students

felt that the administration was

bent on dragging its heels until

the end of the semester and that

no change was in fact intended.

Therefore, on May 14 a meeting

`was planned to hear several out-

side speakers during the noon

hour on the City College campus

at a time and place not previous-

ly approved by administration au-

thorities.

Police On Hand

City College Student Ronald

Cuddy had given college presi-

dent Louis Conlan notice of this

meeting, but permission to hold it

was promptly denied. When the

speakers appeared at the noon

hour they found that a number

of policemen awaited them as

~ well as about a hundred students.

No person was actually allowed

to speak at the meeting, but each

person who was a non-student

was questioned and asked to leave

the campus. Four non-students re-

fused to leave and were promptly

arrested. They are charged with

failing to disperse and unlawful

assembly and with going upon

the grounds of the City College

with intent to wilfully interfere

with the discipline, good order,

lawful conduct and administra-

tion of the activities vf the school

in violation of a section of the

Education Code.

_ Statutes Misapplied

The ACLU believes that neith-

er of these charges can possibly

be applied to the four-three of

whom are students at San Fran-

cisco State College who were in-

vited to the City College meet-

ing to explain campus speech

policy at the State College, All

four will be defended by the

ACLU since their rights under

the First Amendment were in-

fringed.

Cuddy Suspended:

The student who arranged the

meeting, Ronald Cuddy, was even

more severely treated. On May

14 he was handed a letter sus-

pending him for a period of ten

days because he had arranged the

meeting in violation of college

regulations. On May 17 Cuddy

went back to City College to turn

over his time schedule for a

campus job which he had been

holding down. This time his mere

entry onto the college campus to

perform the task resulted in his

arrest on two charges: Failing to

disperse and unlawful assembly

and trespassing. Cuddy also re-

ceived a letter stating that he was

indefinitely suspended from City

College for his activities on May

17. Both of these criminal charges

are patently frivolous. The tres-

passing section with which he is

charged deals with "occupying"

real property against the consent

of the owner and not, `merely en-

tering it.

Hearing Demanded

In a telegram to Superintend-

ent of Schools Harold Spears,

staff counsel Marshall Krause de-

manded a hearing for Cuddy

(who had been suspended without

any hearing whatsoever) as well

as notice of charges and a state-

ment of the authority upon which

the suspension is based. Krause

also asked that pending the hear-

ing Cuddy be reinstated. Dr.

Spears denied the request to tem-

porarily reinstate Cuddy but did

agree to have a "meeting" on the

subject. If the results of this

meeting do not prove satisfac-

tory an injunction action may be

instituted as well as false arrest

actions for the unjustified arrest.

Doctor's

Dismissal

Challenged

In September of 1964 Dr. Ger-

ald Rosenfield accepted employ-

ment as an assistant district

health officer for Alameda

County. A few days later it be-

came known that Rosenfield was

a member of the Ad Hoc Com-

mittee which was at that time

engaged in picketing of the Oak-

land Tribune because of alleged

racial discrimination. Dr. Rosen-

field states that county health

officer Dr. James Malcolm told

him that since the committee was

"controversial" he must resign

from the committee or resign

from his job. When Dr. Rosen-

field refused to resign from the

committee, he was fired from his

job.

Suit Filed

These facts were alleged in a

law suit filed in Alameda County

Superior Court seeking to require

the county to rehire Rosenfield. -

However, Alameda Superior

Court Judge Homer W. Buckley

threw the suit out on the ground

that even if what Rosenfield al-

leged in his complaint were true

he would have no cause of action

since he was only a temporary

employee and did not attain per-

manent status.

Appeal Pending

Now the ACLU has entered

the case to appeal Judge Buck-

ley's decision on the grounds that

no government agency or official

may use their power to abridge

or discourage the right of. asso-

ciation with a lawful group, and

that even a temporary employee

may challenge his dismissal on

such grounds. The case will be

carried to the District Court of

Appeal where it is hoped there

will be a ruling that if Rosen-

field is able to prove he was

fired solely because of his mem-

bership in the Ad Hoc Commit-

tee, he is entitled. to .reinstate-

ment to his job with back salary.

Number 6

sy. First

Amendment

Sacramento Superior Court

Judge Irving H. Perluss filed his

opinion on May 19 in the case of

Weaver v. Jordan involving the

validity of the constitutional

amendment ratified by the vot-

ers as Proposition 15 in the last

election which outlawed pay tele-

vision. The owners of subscrip-

tion television challenged the

validity of the amendment as

conflicting with several constitu-

tional provisions. Judge Perluss

only ruled on the First Amend-

ment issue and found that the

amendment to the California

Constitution conflicted with the.

guarantee of free speech and

press in the United States Con-

stitution and therefore pay tele-

vision could not be banned.

Judge Perluss wrote: "The

great constitutional issue here

presented involves freedom of

speech. ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1946.batch ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1947.batch ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1948.batch ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1949.batch ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1950.batch ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1951.batch ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1952.batch ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1953.batch ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1954.batch ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1955.batch ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1956.batch ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1957.batch ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1958.batch ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1959.batch ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1960.batch ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1961.batch ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1962.batch ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1963.batch ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1964.batch ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1965.batch ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log Since the right is

worthless without an effective

means of expression, the guar-

antee extends to both the con-

tent of the communication and

the means employed for its dis-

semination. ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1946.batch ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1947.batch ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1948.batch ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1949.batch ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1950.batch ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1951.batch ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1952.batch ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1953.batch ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1954.batch ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1955.batch ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1956.batch ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1957.batch ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1958.batch ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1959.batch ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1960.batch ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1961.batch ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1962.batch ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1963.batch ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1964.batch ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1965.batch ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log We first con-

sider the sanguine assertion that

the Act does not inhibit sub-

scription television -it merely

requires that no charge be made

for it. This is comparable to as-

serting that no prohibition of ex-

pression would exist in the case

of newspapers or motion pic-

tures if a statute were adopted

requiring their distribution or

showing without charge."

Judge Perluss then applied the

free speech test used in Dennis

v. United States that the gravity

of the evil regulated by the law

discounted by its improbability

is the measure of whether

speech can be abridged. Since

the Judge found the "evil" of

subscription TV purely specu-

lative and illusory, he therefore

held that there was no justifica-

tion for abridging the right of

this method of communication

to compete with all other meth-

ods of communication.

The American Civil Liberties

Union agrees with the basic re-

sult of Judge Perluss' decision

and plans to file a brief in sup-

port of this result when the case

is appealed to higher courts.

Score ACLUNC

Victory in U.S.

Supreme Court

The ACLU of Northern Cali-

fornia scored a victory in the U.S.

Supreme Court late last month in

the case of Heilberg ys. Fixa. That

case tested the constitutionality

of a 1962 Federal statute under

which the Post Office Department

seized second and third class mail

from abread which was alleged to

be Communist political propagan-

da and released it only upon the

request of the addressee. If there

was no request, the mail was

destroyed.

The 8 to 0 decision of the

court, delivered by Justice Wil-

liam O. Douglas, declared that the

court had to conclude "that the

act as construed and applied is

unconstitutional because it re-

quires an official act (viz. return-

ing a reply card) as a limitation on

an unfettered exercise of the ad-

dressee's First Amendment right."

The case was argued for the

ACLUNC by its staff counsel

Marshali W. Krause to whom the

ACLU extends its congratulations.

Further details about the decision

will be carried in the July issue of

the NEWS.

Pay TV Protected

tion in Selma."

The pot luck will be held

Saturday, June 26, at the

grounds of the Congrega-

tion Rodef Sholom, 175 N.

San Pedro Road, San Ra-

fael-a short distance from

the Marin Civie Center.

(Use Highway 101, Civic

Center exit and watch for

signs.)

The supper is open to all

ACLU members and their

friends. Admission is $1.50

for adults and 75c for stu-

dents and children. Per-

sons whose last names start

with the letters A-M are re-

quested to bring a hot dish;

N-Z, salad. Please bring

sufficient food for three

times the number in your

party.

grees from other colleges.

journals.

excellent speaker.

Dr. Theodore

Featured Speaker ai

larin Pot Luck on June 26

_ The twelfth annual pot luck supper of the Marin

Chapter of the ACLUNC will feature Dr. Theodore A.

Gill, distinguished President of the San Francisco Theo-

logical Seminary, speaking on the subject "Confronta-

Cocktails and pot luck supper will start at 5:30 p.m.,

while the program will begin at 8 p.m.

Dr. Gill was born in "Minnesota in 1920. He grad-

uated with a B.A. degree from the University of Wis-

consin in 1940 and received a Th.B. from Princeton

Theological Seminary in 1943. He received a D. Theol.

from the University of Zurich in 1948 and he holds de-

He has been a minister, teacher and Managing Kdi-

tor of The Christian Century and editor of The Pulpit.

He is the author of books and a contributor to various

Dr. Gill became President of San Francisco Theo-

logical Seminary in San Anselmo in 1960. He is an

DR. THEODORE A. GILL

Professor Arrested at .

S.F. Street Corner

Meeting

Dr. Dale Pontius is a professor who not only speaks his

mind in the classroom but also on various street corners

around the world. He has spoken about the late Senator

Joe McCarthy on the streets of Chicago, he has spoken about

the dangers of atmospheric nuclear tests on the streets of

Moscow, and he has spoken about

the war in Vietnam on the streets

of various Bay Area communities.

Dr. Pontius admits that street

corner speaking may lack dignity,

but he has written an interesting

article appearing elsewhere in

the News explaining its virtues.

Visiting Professor

Pontius'. ordinary employment

is aS a professor of political sci-

ence at Roosevelt University in

Chicago. He is in the Bay Area

this year on a grant enabling him

to do research on the American

occupation of Japan at Stanford

University's Hoover Institute.

On Saturday May 1 he left his

Peninsula home and told his wife

that he might not be back until

late since he planned to speak out

on Vietnam as long as his voice

lasted. He began to speak in San

Francisco's Union Square about

1 p.m. Saturday and continued

_ Speaking there until it became

dark,

Powell and Market

Then Pontius moved down to

the area of Powell and Market

Street where there were more

people on the streets and thus

more people to whom he could

communicate, At about 1 a.m.

Sunday morning he was. still

speaking and a crowd of about

30 persons, not all of whom were

friendly, had gathered about him.

Five or six of San Francisco's po-

lice department then visited the

meeting and ordered the crowd

to disperse saying, "With this

sort of agitation someone might

be provoked." Since there was no

blocking of traffic on the street

or interference with any other

lawful activity, it is doubtful that

the police had the authority to

make this order. However, most

of the crowd being wise to the

ways of San Francisco police de-

cided to heed the order and did

disperse.

Two Arrested

One young man, Brian Kasta-

ma, stopped at a traffic light and

for some reason decided that he

would write down the license

number of the patrol wagon in

which the police arrived. This

was enough to cause his arrest

for failing to move on. Dr. Ponti-

us then decided to find out why

Kastama had been arrested and

was promptly arrested himself

for failing to disperse.

Basis For Intervention

American Civil Liberties Un-

ion staff counsel Marshall Krause

will defend both men on the

basis that the police had no

right to order the meeting to dis-

perse and they in fact interfered

with Dr. Pontius' right to speak

and Mr. Kastama's right to hear

which are both protected by the

First Amendment as well as pro-

visions of the California Constitu-

tion. A trial is scheduled for San

Francisco Municipal Court on

June 23. In discussing this case

with the office of the district at-

torney, Krause learned that the

police justify their order to dis-

perse on the basis that some of

the crowd seemed to be getting

provoked by Dr. Pontius' speech

and that they were afraid there

might be some danger to him.

When asked why the police pow=

er was not used to protect Ponti-

us' right to speak instead of to

destroy it, no answer was forth-

coming.

yale,

Subscription Rates

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NEWS

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union ef Northern California

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

ERNEST BESIG .. . Editor

503 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105, EXbrook 2-4692

Two Dollars a Year

Twenty Cents Per Copy -

Ralph B. Atkinsen

Dr. Alfred Azevedo

Leo Borregard

Rey. Richard Byfield

Richard DeLancie

Rabbi Alvin I. Fine

Mes. Zora Cheever Gross

Albert Haas, Jr.

Howard A. Jewel

Rey. F. Danford Lion

Prof. Seaton W. Manning -

John R. May

Honorary Treasurer:

"Jeseph S$. Thompson

Honorary Board Member:

Sara Bard Field

Mrs. Gladys Brown

Mrs. Paul Couture

John J. Eagan

Joseph Eichler :

Morse Erskine

- Dr. H. H.. Fisher

Mes. Margaret C. Hayes |

Prof. Ernest Hilgard

Mrs. Paul Holmer

Mrs. Mary Hutchinson

Richard Johnston

Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California

CHAIRMAN: Howard A. Friedman

VICE-CHAIRMEN: Helen Salz

Rey. Harry B. Scholefield

SECRETARY-TREASURER: John M. Fowle

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Ernest Besig ~

Committee of Sponsors

Prof. John. Henry Merryman

Prof. Charles Muscatine

Prof. Herbert Packer

Clarence E. Rust

John Brishin Rutherford

Mrs. Martin Steiner

Gregory S$. Stout

Stephen Thiermann

Richard pound. Tuttle

Donald Vial

Richard J. Werthimer

GENERAL COUNSEL

Wayne M. Collins

Roger Kent

Mrs. Ruth Kingman -

Prof. Theodore Kreps

Prof. Carlo Lastrucca

Norman Lezin

Rev. Robert W. Moon

De. Marvin J. Naman

Prof Hubert Phillips

Prof. Wilson Record

Dr. Norman Reider

Prof. Wallace Stegner

Mrs. Theodosia Stewart

Rt. Rev. Sumner Walters

A Marin Memorial

To Clem

iller

_ The Marin County chapter of the American Civil Liberties

Union plans a unique memorial for one of its founders, the

late Congressman Clem Miller of the First District, whose

career was terminated by death in a plane crash in October,

1962.

It will be a library of books, papers, and documents deal-

ing with civil rights and civil `liberties, for use by judges,

lawyers, teachers, scholars, and anybody else who is con-

cerned and interested in the field.

Bay Area residents are urged to send books, money, and

documents to the Clem Miller Memorial Library, in care of

Mrs. Virginia Keating, Librarian, Marin County Civic Center,

San Rafael.-Editorial, San Francisco Chronicle, April 26,

1965.

Unwarranted Search

Violates the Law

Federal Judge George B. Harris has effectively waged

one more battle in the continuing war against the infringe-

`ment of constitutional rights and guarantees by overzealous

law enforcement officers.

He threw out evidence against a suspected dope peddler

collected by Federal narcotics agents and local police who

entered his home,

intimidated his family, ransacked the

house, confiscated $7500 in cash, and arrested the suspect

without stating any charge-all without benefit of a search

warrant.

Judge Harris castigated the officers for this flagrant vio-

lation of the law and abuse of individual rights. We commend

his forthright and vigorous defense of the rights of house-

holders against officers who ignore the search-and-seizure

provisions of the Fourth Amendment and trample on the

Constitution in the name of the law.-Editorial, San Fran-

cisco Chronicle, April 15, 1965.

_ Action Urged In

One-man, One

and

Vote Fight

Lawrenee Speiser, director of

the Washington, D. C. office of

the ACLU, has reported that "the

outlook is dim, but not hopeless,"

`with respect to various proposals

te amend the Constitution toe

overcome the Supreme Ceurt's

decisions in the reapportionment

field. "It is expected," said he

"that the Senate Sub-committee

and the full Senate Judiciary

Committee will report out some

proposal. At the present time, it

appears the vote in the Subcom-

mittee is 5 te 4 in favor of the

Dirksen Amendment or some

variation of it, in the full Com-

mittee, it is 9 to 7. However, it

should be pointed out that the 7

includes those who are in favor

of some kind of proposal al-

though not the Dirksen Amend-

ment itself."

Coereceensl Line-Up

Speiser reports there are ap-

proximately 60 Senaters who are

in favor of some reapportionment

proposal. "This is not the two-

thirds that are necessary but, as

you can see, it is very close."

On the House side, the House

Judiciary Committee has not yet

started its hearings. The Chair-

man of the House Judiciary Com-

mittee, Emanuel] Celler, is op-

posed to any of the reapportion-

ment proposals; however, he can-

not prevent the hearings from be-

ing held. The hearings should

start after the Voting Rights Bill

of 1965 is finished, which should

be sometime in June. A recent

nose count of House members

showed that approximately 250

were in favor of some kind of

eonstitutional amendment. How-

ever, 290 are needed.

Letter-Writing Campaign

"The most effective thing that

the American Civil Liberties Un-

ion of Northern California can

do," Speiser continues, "is to start

a massive letter-writing campaign

to all the Northern California

Congressmen urging their opposi-

tion te any of the reapportion-

ment proposals. You might also

urge them to write te your Sena-

tors, but I think it is unrealistic

to. believe that it will have any

effect."

The American Civil Liberties

Union, along with a number of

other organizations, has started

the National Committee for Fair

Representation, which has pro-

duced a pamphlet and has at-

tempted te induce other groups

to become concerned with the

problem. They hope te get out a

newsletter shortly.

Articles Needed

"One additional. thing that

might be done," says Speiser, "is

to try to induce newspaper and

magazine articles on this question

as well as to try to convince radio

and television stations te present

programs on the whole reappor-

tionment question. It is a techni-

cal problem and, for mest people,

alas, lacks political glamour, but

it is not an understatement to

say that it is one of the most im-

portant political problems facing

the country today."

Re-hire Teacher Who O bigets to Flag Salute

The contract of the principal

of the three-teacher, 60-pupil

Horicon School District in isolat-

ed Annapolis, Sonoma county,

was renewed by a 2 to 1 vote last

month despite his objections to

flag saluting. The principal, Burl

Bigelow, under a compromise ar-

rangement with the school board

agreed to pledge allegiance to the

flag "should I be in its presence

in front of the students, and on

rainy days, when. the pledge is

said in the individual classrooms.

I stated clearly that I was doing

this only under protest, and that

I had no intention of going out to

ACLU NEWS

JUNE, 1965

Page 2

salute the flag every morning."

County Supt. Invelved

The issue came to a head after

two parents and a board member

discussed the matter with Dr.

Hamilton, county superintendent

of schools in Santa Rosa. The

board member expressed concern

that Bigelow was a Communist.

Dr. Hamilton reportedly told the

delegation that Bigelow had to

salute the flag, The ACLU con-

tacted Dr. Hamilton and ex-

pressed its interest in the case

and its willingness toe support

Bigelow. Dr. Hamilton then wrote

a letter to the board recommend-

ing against rehiring Bigelow be-

cause of community unrest. On

the other hand, many parents ap-

peared before the school board

and supported Bigelow.

`Reasons For Action

Bigelow, in a letter to the

ACLU, summarized his position

on flag saluting and the pledge

of allegiance as follows:

"1. Iam not a religious person.

inasmuch as I believe in no theis-

tic being. Therefore, I object to

_ the phrase, `under God.'

"2. To pledge allegiance to the

government whether or not the

government is right or wrong, is,

I feel, hypocritical and unintelli-

gent. I pledge allegiance to my

country only when I feel it is

`acting in accordance with truth.

"3. I object to the phrase, `one

nation, indivisible' because if sec-

tional conflicts of interest could

-Continued on Page 3

Magna Carta

Anniversary

To Be Celebrated

June 15th will mark the 750th

anniversary of the granting of

the Magna Carta by King John.

This historic oceasion will be

celebrated at a meeting co-spon-

sored by the ACLU of Northern

California and Boalt Hall Law

School at Berkeley. The prin-

cipal speaker at the meeting will

be Geoffrey Hazard, Jr., former

professor of law at the Univer-

sity of California and now ad-

ministrator of the American Bar

Association Foundation. Profes-

sor Hazard's subject will be

"Magna Carta and Constitutional

Freedom."

While Magna Carta is. some-

times thought of as a charter of

rights for the Barons of England

and not for the people at large,

it was generally considered in

later English history as.a solemn

grant to the people of England

of rights against the King. Such

important civil -liberties prin-

ciples as the right of trial: by

jury and the right to habeas cor-

pus are rooted in the provisions

of Magna Carta. Certainly the

founders of this nation were well

aware of its significance in the

struggle against absolute govern-

mental authority. Professor Haz-

ard is well-qualified beth as an

expert on English legal history

and on current civil liberties to

present the anniversary address.

Exact details of the meeting

are not yet decided upon as this

issue of the News goes to press,

but they will be publicized

through other channels and in-

terested persons may also cali

the ACLU office for details.

Members of the general public

and especially members of the

American Civil Liberties Union

are urged to attend.

Membership

Now Art 6450

The paiag-up membership of the

ACLU of Northern California

took another leap forward last

month as a net gain of about 175

members was made since the re-

port in last month's NEWS. As

a result, as we go to press, the

paid-up membership stands at a

record high of 6450, as compared

with 5649 a year ago. In addition,

there are 188 separate subscrib-

ers to the monthly NEWS and;

therefore, a paid mailing list of

6638.

During the last two years, the

ACLU has experienced a net gain

of a thousand members. In the

last twelve years, the branch

membership, which stood at 3221,

has more than doubled.

Sireet-Corner Speaki

RT. REV, JAMES A. PIKE

4th of July

Annual

BIG Picnic

Starting this year, the Berke-

ley-Albany Chapter. of the

ACLUNC inaugurates the first of

its annual 4th of July BIG Pic-

nics. Beginning at 10 a.m. it will

take place at Redwood Regional

Park, Oakland.

Bishep Pike Speaks

Between 2 and 4 p.m. there

will be a program featuring the

Rt. Rev. James A, Pike, Bishop

of California for the Episcopal

Church, and entertainment (ar-

ranged by John Henry Mitchelil,.

well-known East Bay folk sing-

er), consisting of singers, dane-

ers and musicians, followed by

general dancing to live country

music. Supervised playground

activities for the children during

the program has been = ar-

ranged.

Buy Tickets Now

Only adults will be charged ad-

mission. Tickets, at $1.50 each,

may be purchased from: ACLU-

NC Office, San Francisco; Books

Unlimited, 1550 Shattuck Ave.,

Berkeley; Mrs. Alan Bradley, 3531

Beloit Ave. Berkeley 8; and

from the chairmen of each of the

ACLUNC chapters.

Directions to Park

From the East Bay: Via the

Warren Freeway to Joaquin Mil-

ler Road, along Joaquin Miller

Road to Skyline Boulevard, left

on Skyline for epone aay

half a mile.

From San Francisco: Via Mac-

Arthur Freeway (Route 580) to

Fruitvale Avenue exit, left te

McArthur Boulevard, right to

`Lincoln, left onto Lincoln, along

Lineoln (which becomes Joaquin

Miller) to Skyline, left on Sky-

line for approximately half a

mile.

ng

By DALE PONTIUS

Believing that there has been a relative absence of debate

during these critical times of possible escalation of world

nuclear war over Vietnam, I have tried the technique of

street-corner speaking. The situation has been one in which

the Cengress has pretty largely abnegated its responsibilities.

Other organs of opinion, like-

wise, have shunned significant

debate. So I took to Union

Square and the streets.

Loneliest Spot

On one occasion, I was on what

is certainly the loneliest spot in

San Francisco for the practice of

street-corner speech-making.

While speaking there, a woman

descended the long steps leading

frem the church entrance. She

walked past me without recogni-

`tion, without batting an eye-lash.

Finally, unable to resist com-

ment, she said, "You have no dig-

nity!"

Lacks Dignity

Street corner speaking does

lack dignity. So does piacard-

carrying, I suppose, and picket-_

ing. Yet,.from the flung remark,

I developed a bit of surrealistic

doggerel:

Dignity is

Love is evil.

Can we.not believe still that

godly;

truth is more important than dig-

nity? The street corner can be the

last refuge for the unheard, the

unwanted, and the unpopular.

The street-corner speaker can

rest his faith in the possibility of

intelligence and insight, yes, and

human compassion, in the least of

human beings. How else can the

democratic faith survive?

Faith in Democracy

Who can know the effective-

_ ness of this technique? All that I

ean do is to testify to the faci that

I have seen a growth of under-

standing of some of the things

I have been saying on the street-

corners. If, on the one hand, one

exposes himself to the depths of

human bigotry and intolerance

from both sober and drunk hu-

man beings, on the other hand,

rewards have emerged which

have strengthened my faith in

democracy.

Pledge of Allegiance

pjectio

S

Pupils who are conscientiously opposed to pledging

allegiance to the flag cannot be forced to do so the Superior

Court of Santa Barbara County ruled last month. The ruling

was made in favor of Charles Ames, an 18-year-old senior

at Santa Barbara High School and the son of a professor

at Purdue University. The case

is being handled by the ACLU

of Southern California.

Respect Shown

At the time of his suspension

from school last September for

refusing to join in the pledge

of allegiance, Ames said he was"

willing to stand "in respect"

while the rest of the school re-

cited the pledge but that he does

not believe in God and therefore

cannot in good conscience say the

words, "one Nation, under God."

But it was not because of reli-

gious reasons that he refused to

recite the pledge. He objects to

the phrase "with liberty and jus-

tice for all," which he says is

not true. "The pledge is enforced

patriotism," he declared, and he

felt it was "meaningless to say

it again and again after having

once said it."

During the past two years the

Santa Barbara School Board has

excused 43 of 15,000 students in

the system from pledging alle-

giance-all on religious grounds.

Barnett Case Quoted

The opinion by Superior Judge

`W. Preston Butcher quoted from .

the decision of the U. S. Supreme

Court in United States vs. Barn-

ett, a flag salute case in which the

court declared: "If there is any

`fixed star in our constitutional

eonstellation, it is that no official,

high or petty, can prescribe what

shall be orthodox in politics, na-

tionalism, religion, or other mat-

ters of opinion, or force citizens

te confess by word or act their

faith therein. If there are any

circumstances which permit an

exception they do not now occur

to us.

"We think the action of the lo-

eal authorities in compelling the

flag salute and pledge transcends

constitutional limitations on their

power and invades the sphere of

intellect and spirit which it is the

purpose of the First Amendment

to our Constitution to reserve

from all official control."

Distinction Made

While the court felt that Ames'

objections were essentially re-

ligious and, therefore, were dis-

posed of by the Barnett case, it

nevertheless, accepted his dis-

tinction between religion and

freedom of conscience and de-

cided the case under the free

speech provisions of the First

Amendment. The _ concluding

paragraphs of the court's opinion

read as follows:

"It is unnecessary, indeed it is |

not the duty of this Court, to

pass upon the validity of Petition-

er's ideas or whether he is right

or wrong, or pass upon the justi-

fication of his rejection of what

the majority of others may be- (c)

lieve. Because some may think

him odd, or even sacrilegious is

of no moment to this Court. We

must and we shall stand for his

right, his own right to think as.

he will so long as his way of life

resulting from thoughts do not

harm and do not interfere with

the beliefs of others.

Freedom of Speech

"We hold Petitioner has the

right to refuse to verbally recite

the Pledge, and I base this upon

the Constitutional ground, too, of

Freedom of Speech, his right to

express himself or speak in a.

sense is his right to remain silent,

to stand with his hand over his

heart and give his devotion to

the ideal for which the flag

stands. He has so stated that, but

that is his way-his way of speak-

`ing-and if it is his way of speak-

ing then the First Amendment

guarantees that right.

Voluntary Recitation

"In conclusion, however, let it

be made crystal clear that noth-

ing in this Court's ruling shall be

construed in any way as restrict-

ing the power, yes, and the duty

of the Board of Education of-this

community to continue in its

commendable efforts to instill in

the young upcoming citizens of

this community the patriotism

and leve of. country which we

must all adhereto. And in noe way,

as I have already said to you, is

this Court critical of the proceed-

ings that the Board is following.

By all means continue with the

Pledge of Allegiance for those

who wish to voluntarily recite it,

but when any member of the

school desires to refrain from re-

citing that pledge and in good

faith, bases his refusal on the

broader sense of Freedom of

Speech, Freedom of Conscience,

permit him to do so. If the Peti-

tioner is willing te stand silently

in his salute to the flag, let him

do so.

Ne Other Cheice

"Liberty, justice and tolerance,

-the greatest of these is toler-

ance. Soe I must by the compul-

sion of the United States Con-

stitution command the Respond-

ent Board of Education to per-

mit this Petitioner to remain si-

lent and not to compel him `to re-

cite the words of the Pledge of

Allegiance. I have no _ other

choice." =

It seems highly deubtful that

an appeal will be taken to the

State District Court of Appeal.

| minder to the general com-

Sacramento

Breakfast

June 13

The sixth Annual Breakfast

of the Sacramento Valley

Chapter of the ACLUNC will

- be held at the Sacramento Inn

on Sunday, June 13 at 10 a.m.

The speaker will be attorney

Coleman Blease, legislative

representative of the ACLU in

the State Legislature. He will

speak on the Dirksen Amend-

ment and other efforts in Con-

gress to amend the Constitu-

tion to medify the effect of

the one man, one vete deci-

sions of the U. S. Supreme

Court. Chairman of the meet-

ing is Mrs. Rita S. Brandeis,

an attorney, and chairman of

the chapter.

Tickets for this event are al-

ways in great demand. Last

year, the Sacramento. Inn was

jammed with 450 persons.

Tickets at $2.50 per person

(including tax and tip) may be

obtained from Mrs. George

Bramson, 7809 Greenridge

Way, Fair Oaks, Calif. (Tele-

phone 967-2603).

The Annual Breakfast has

become a Sacramento institu-

tion and affords an excellent

opportunity for members of

the ACLU to acquaint their

friends with the work of `the

ACLU. It also serves as a re-

munity that the ACLU is on

the job in Sacramente.

Charges Against Precedural Due Process

Ocklend Pickets _

Dismissed

The charges of Oakland Police

Department that University of

California student Sharon Stern

-and four other young persons

committed criminal offenses

while engaged in picketing on

behalf of the Congress of Racial

Equality to protest alleged dis-

eriminations by Oakland restau-

rants were dismissed last month

in Oakland Municipal Court. The

dismissal came on motion of the

District Attorney as the five de-

fendants and their witnesses were

gathered in the courtroom of

Judge Martin Pulich ready to

proceed with the trial. There was

no official explanation fer the

' dismissal, but the weakness of the

District Attorney's case can be

seen by the fact that he insisted

that the defendants sign agree-

ments not to sue for false arrest

as a condition of the dismissals.

Miss Stern, who was charged with

disturbing the peace, was repre-

sented by ACLU staff counsel

- Marshall W. Krause while the

other four defendants were rep-

resented by Mrs. Arlene Heath

since their cases involved dis-

puted facts rather than pure civil

liberties issues.

Profane Remark

The charge against Miss Stern

grew out of an alleged profane

remark made to a police officer

during the picketing. Miss Stern

denied the police allegation and

the ACLU took the position that,

in any event, she was engaged in

lawful picketing and her remarks

could not have resulted in any

disturbance of the peace.

Another Charge Dismissed

Miss Stern was also charged

with a violation of an Oakland

Municipal Code section prohibit-

ing "profane and seditious lan-

guage." However, Judge Pulich

sustained a demurrer to this

charge ruling that the Oakland

Municipal Code section was in-

valid because it had been pre-

empted by state law. The five de-

`fendants were arrested in a Lin- .

coln's Birthday picket line by

Oakland police officers who

`seemed to be going out of their

way to cause the two hundred

pickets as much difficulty as

possible. The community re-

sponse to these arrests caused

about one thousand pickets to

turn out for the next week's

demonstration but the police had

learned their lesson and this time

did not crowd or harass the

pickets and there were no arrests.

Arrest Records Remain

Of course merely dismissing the

charges does not erase from the

records of any of the five de-

fendants that they were arrested

and charged with crimes and they

will always have to disclose their

arrest records when asked on em-

ployment applications and the

like. It is hoped that the refusal

to prosecute the pickets indicates

a better attitude on the part of

the Oakland Police Department

to the exercise of first amend-

ment rights.

Re-Hire Teacher

Who Objects

To Flag Salute

Continued from Page 2-

be settled peacefully by this na-

tion's division I can honestly see

nothing wrong with it.

"4. I believe completely in the

sovereignty of the individual,

with no God, no nation, or any

other type of authority being su-

perior te him. For this reasen

above all else I object to the

pledge that in its parts and in its

entirety conveys the idea that

both God and nation are superior

`to the individual.

"5. I pledge allegiance to my-

self, to act according to my own

conscience. and not any other

authority, this government or any

other government."

Late in April the United States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Cireuit filed its opinion in Wilson v. Gray reversing

the granting of a new trial to Gray by Federal District Judge

Alfonso J. Zirpoli. Judge Zirpoli had ruled that the standard

procedure used in many California courts for felony cases

whereby a case is submitted to

a judge for decision (after per--

sonal waiver of the right to jury

trial) on the transcript of the

evidence taken at the prelim-

inary hearing, is invalid. He also

ruled that this was really a "slow

plea of guilty" and resulted in

the waiver of the right under the

sixth amendment to confront and

cross-examine witnesses and thus

could not be done without the

personal consent of the defend-

ant.

Looking for Trial

In Gray's case not only was

there no personal consent to the

submission of the case on the

preliminary record and without

trial, but Gray's counsel did not

explain this procedure to him

and Gray never knew what was

going on. As Gray cogently

stated in his self-prepared peti-

tion for habeas corpus, "I was

still looking for a trial."

State Appeals

The State of California appeal-

ed Judge Zirpoli's decision and

at this point the Court of Ap-

peals appointed ACLU . staff

counsel Marshall Krause to rep-

resent Gray. The Circuit Court's

opinion was written by Judge

Hamlin and concurred in by

Judge Duniway. Judge Hamley

concurred only in the.result of.

the decision and in one portion

of its reasoning.

Client Ignored

The appeals court ruled that

it was not a deprivation of con-

stitutional rights for the attorney

for an accused person to waive

his right to cross-examination

and confrontation without per-

mission of his client. Although

the court did not mention the

point, its decision also means

- that the defendant need not un-

derstand what his attorney is

doing. The court said: "The

record clearly indicates that un-

der the circumstances of the

case as they existed at the time

of trial, the decision of appellee's

counsel to enter the stipulation

Meeting Place

Restored After

ACLU Protest

A protest by the ACLU last

month brought prompt reversal

of the action of the San Francis-

co Park and Recreation Depart-

in cancelling use of the Lake

Merced Boat House for support-

ers of the National Guardian.

James Aronson, editor of the

paper, had been scheduled to

speak to a luncheon meeting on

May 16, a contract for use of the

boat house had been signed and

the fee paid. Several] days before

meeting, however, the manager of

the house boat phoned to cancel

the meeting after police had in-

formed him that the organization

was not a Suitable one. :

The ACLU. executive directo

talked to the secretary of the

Park Commission and indicated

his intention of reporting the

story to the local newspapers un-

less the meeting was allowed to

go on. He asked for a decision

within a half hour. In less time

than that he was informed that

the cancellation was all a. mis-

take and that the meeting would

be allowed to proceed. The meet-

ing was held without incident.

was both wise and prudent, a

decision deliberately made as a

matter of trial tactics and strat-

egy. We hold that under the

circumstances of this case the ap-

pellee's right to cross-examine

and confront prosecution wit-

nesses was effectively waived by

his counsel." The court also said:

"There was no denial of fun-

damental fairness to appellee

and ... the stipulation by coun-

sel made in the presence of ap-

pellee and without objection by

him constituted no failure of due

process. The order of the district

court granting the writ of habeas

corpus is reversed and the dis-

trict court is directed to dismiss

the proceeding and remand ap-

pellee to the custody of appel-

lant."

No Jurisdiction

The Court of Appeals also

ruled that Judge Zirpoli was not

only wrong on the merits but

had no jurisdiction to proceed

with the case in the first place.

This was because Gray was im-

prisoned under two concurrent

sentences and was only attack-

ing the procedures used to con-

vict him for the second time. It

is believed however, that this

ruling overlooks the facts of the

case which show that Gray was

given probation on the first con-

viction and his probation was

only revoked and he was only

erdered to serve a prison sen-

tence on the first conviction be-

cause he was convicted for a

second time. It follows that if

this second conviction were in-

valid then imprisonment on the

first conviction would also be

invalid.

Other Factors

The Court of Appeals sought

to get around this reasoning by |

finding that other factors be-

sides the second conviction were .

used by the state court judge

(Gray was convicted in Los An-

geles of assault with intent to do

bodily harm) in deciding to re-

voke probation. A petition for

rehearing has been filed with the

court pointing out that the rec-

ord does not support this con-

clusion. .

Petition to Supreme Court

The ACLU plans to petition

the United States Supreme Court

to hear this case since we be-

lieve Gray never understood

what his attorney was doing for

or to him, and therefore could

not have "knowingly" waived

his constitutional rights. More-

over, the actions of Gray's coun-

sel in this case really amounted.

to waiving Gray's right to a trial

since not only did he allow the

case to be decided on the evi-

dence taken at the preliminary

examination (which consisted

only of the testimony of the

complaining witness) but he

made absolutely no argument to .

the trial judge that his client was

not guilty. This procedure is so

fundamental that it should not

be allowed without the personal

consent of the defendant ex-

pressed in open court which the

trial judge ascertains to be a

knowing and understanding con-

sent to what the consequences

of his acts will be.

ACLU NEWS

JUNE,1965

Page 3

_Prurient Appeal and Politics

ae old civil liberties perennial-obscenity-is getting

attention in the legislature these days. As seems usual at

this time of the political season, a young man's fancy lightly

turns to thoughts of-reelection. And perforce the attrac-

tions of prurient appeal have yielded to the attractions of

`political appeal. The attention

getter is a bill (AB 1313) intro-.

`duced by a retired Navy Chap-

lain, E. Richard Barnes (R., San

Diego) who, by dint of hard work

-and dedication, has got a goodly

`number of people aroused to the

evils of dirty. books. One of them,

you may remember, which the

chaplain, some time ago, found

insidiously introduced into the

libraries..of secondary schools,

was the Dictionary of American

Slang.

oe Heart of Bill

_. The heart of the Barnes bill is

its deletion of the phrase "and is

matter which is utterly without

redeeming social importance"

from the Penal Code definition of

obscenity. This. language is the

heart of the obscenity definition,

not only because the term "utter-

ly" forces the attention of the

court or the jury upon the re-

deeming qualities of the charged

work, but because it offers the

only overt protection given to

artistic, literary or scientific

merit. With the language re-

moved, the test of obscenity

would largely be reduced to a_

test of community revulsion and

sexual appeal. The language is

also of constitutional import. Con-

sequently, one of the Chaplain's

difficulties had to do with ex-

plaining why the. Legislative

Counsel had issued an opinion

holding that the removal of the

eontested language would render

the definition unconstitutional.

Two Lengthy Hearings

"At any rate, Chaplain Barnes'

bill was made the subject, of two

lengthy hearings before the As-

sembly committee on Criminal

Procedure. At the first hearing,

after the chaplain displayed piles

of dirty books with such intrigu-

ing titles as "Sin Girl' and a peti-

tion alleged to contain over 100,-

000 signatures, the committee de-

feated the measure on a tie, five

to five vote. The split was largely

along party lines with five Demo-

crats (Knox, Beilenson, .Crown,

Zenovich, Winton) opposed and

one Democrat (Young, the chair-

man) and four Republicans

_ (Barnes, Thelin, Biddle, Deukme-

jian) in favor of the measure.

Compromise Measure

The Committee also considered

a "compromise" measure (AB

2152) offered by the chairman,

Pearce. Young, The Young bill

sought to redefine the "utterly"

phrase without substantially al-

tering its meaning. The Young bill

at first passed the committee, -

with Zenovich switching his vote.

But. Zenovich. offered his vote

only on condition that the author

drop the bill if any substantial

changes were later made. The

condition angered Chaplain

Barnes, who had cast his favor-

able vote before Zenovitch, and

the committee then voted to re-

scind the `action taken on both

the Barnes and Young bills. .

Young Bill Defeated

Another hearing was held, The

Barnes bill was again defeated,

no votes having shifted in the

interim. But when the Young Bill

was considered, Barnes voted

against the measure, claiming

that he could not "in good con-

science" support a measure that

did not, as his bill did,. remove

the language "utterly without re-

ACLU NEWS

JUNE,1965

Page 4

deeming social importance." Two

of the other three Republicans,

previously voting for the Young

bill (Thelin, Deukmejian), ab-

stained; the fourth (Biddle) voted

the same way again. The result: a

three to three tie vote - sending

the measure to defeat.

Politics of the Matter

At this juncture the politics of

the matter came to the fore. If

the Young bill had passed, the

obscenity issue would have taken

on a bi-partisan cast and (obvi-

ously) would have dampened its

political value. Moreover, any at-

tempt to amend the bill on the

Assembly floor or in the Senate

would have killed it, pursuant to

the Zenovich condition. But with

both bills killed, the way was

clear for Chaplain Barnes to uti-

lize a rarely-used rule permitting

a measure to be withdrawn from

committee upon an affirmative

vote of 41 Assemblymen. This

he promptly did, with the unoffi-

cial but general support of the Re-

publican Assembly caucus. The

move also forced the Speaker of

the Assembly, Jesse Unruh, into

opposition to the withdrawal mo-

tion to preserve the integrity of

the committee system.

Unusual Prospects

That was the state of affairs at

the date of this writing. The with-

drawal debate will have oceurred

by the time this is in print. If

successful, AB 1313 would prob-

ably go on to passage in both

houses. If signed by the Governor

it would present a rather unusual

prospect, one which was care-

fully explained to Chaplain

Barnes and his supporters. The

current obscenity law is all of a

piece. That is, the separate pro-

visions of the law all relate back

to the definition of obscenity.

Consequently, if the definition

is ruled unconstitutional by the

courts there would be no obscen-

ity law on the books at all Cocal

governments being prohibited to

act in this area under the doc-

trine of preemption) until the

legislature met and enacted a

new law. There would be a period

of unrestrained activity: A most

interesting result for the efforts

of the smut haters.

Happy Ending

As with any good American

novel, there should be a happy

ending to this story. Nine mem-

bers of the Criminal Procedure

Committee, have authored a reso-

lution seeking a "full-scale and

in-depth study of the effects of

pornography... ." For the empiri-

cal minded on the committee this

offers the glorious guilt-free pros-

pect of hours of dedicated study

of the "best" of pornography.

And with political capital to boot.

Shades of Louis Francis!

Mulford Bill Adopted

Although it may seem other-

wise, obscenity is but one of

civil liberties issues still before

the legislature. With but four

weeks remaining to the June 18th

end of the session, there are

dozens of bills yet to be heard.

Measures relating to civil rights,

criminal procedure, freedom of

speech are still in transit. There

are more'bills yet to come on the

much belabored University of

California problems, even though

the legislature finally passed the

Mulford Bill (AB 1920) to give

the University and state college

Alcoholic

Released

From Jail

Personal injury lawyers often

remark on the great rehabilita-

tive effect of a judgment for dam-

ages. Now the ACLU can report

the same effect from the filing

of a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus in Contra Costa County.

The petition was filed by volun-

teer attorney Ruth Rathke and

its subject was Archie Halverson

who was confined in a jail farm

and treated the same as persons

convicted of crimes, even though

he was civilly committed after

turning himself in as a person in

need of medical treatment for

alcoholism.

An Inebriate

Halverson was sent to jail for

a period of one year on February

9, 1965, after Contra Costa Su-

perior Court Judge Robert Coon-

ey found that he was an inebriate

as defined in the Welfare and

Institutions Code. Mrs. Rathke's

petition, which was prepared with

the aid of staff counsel Marshall

W. Krause, charged that Halver-

son was receiving inadequate or

no medical treatment at the jail

facility and that this factor com-

bined with his incarceration with

persons convicted of crimes de-

prived him of liberty and proper-

ty without due process of law and

resulted in the imposition of

cruel and unusual punishment.

The petition concluded "The pe-

tition does not attack the com-

pulsory treatment of illnesses, but

it does assert that if the State

takes responsibility for an illness

by taking jurisdiction over a per-

son's body, then the State has the

responsibility to provide adequate

and on-going treatment for the

illness. Merely letting a person

sit in a jail cell or simply incar-

cerating a person is by no stretch

of the imagination compliance

with this responsibility."

Halverson. Discharged

When the habeas corpus pe-

tition came on for hearing late

in April it turned out that there

was no longer any case to hear

since the Sheriff of the county

filed:a return to the writ stating

that Archie Halverson was dis-

charged from custody on April

27 by order of Judge Cooney.

The reason for the Judge's action

was a letter from William Pres-

ton, M.D., assistant director, com-

munity mental health services for

Contra Costa County, who told

the Judge that "After re-exam-

ining and re-evaluating Mr. Ar-

chie Halverson I find him physi-

cally improved since his last ad-

mission to the hospital and his

stay at the County Rehabilitation

Center. Therefore, I feel that Mr.

Halverson would not benefit from

further stay at the County Re-

habilitation Center. I recommend

that the judge warn him against

the further use of any alcoholic

beverage now or in the future."

One may draw one's own con-

clusions concerning the coinci-

dence between this re-evaluation

and the filing of the legal chal-

lenge to the County's practices.

Medical Director's Contentions

In fairness we should point out

that the County Medical Director,

George Degnan, M.D., does con-

tend that there is regularly

scheduled counselling on alcohol-

ism for persons at the jail farm

and that the environment "can

be considered therapeutic in that

no drinking is permissible and

the surroundings are rural and

pleasant."

authorities extensive trespass

powers over "outsiders." This

latter measure was held up for

two weeks in the Senate by Sena-

tor George Miller until the ex-

tensive lobbying efforts of the

University and the Regents final-

ly got the bare two-thirds vote

needed for passage. This story,

and others, will be reported in

a future issue. |

- Coleman A. Blease-

ACLU Policy Statement

On the Subject of Li

el

The following statement outlines the position of the

ACLU on the subject of libel. It was adopted by Ue national

board of Directors on April 5, 1965.

1.. A free society is one in

which there is freedom of speech

and of the press - where a

market place of ideas exists in

which all points of view compete

for recognition. Whether view-

points or ideas are wrong or

right, obnoxious or acceptable

should not be the criterion.

Speech cannot be restricted with-

out the danger of making the gov-

ernment the arbiter of truth.

2. But defamatory attacks on

individuals have little relation (if

any at all) to the purposes for |

which freedom of speech is safe-

guarded. False statements in-

volving character assassination do

not forward the process of a mar-

ket place of ideas. In the absence

of an overriding public interest,

therefore, the right to sue for

libel has not in itself been regard-

ed as'a violation of civil liberties.

3.~The ACLU believes that

civil liberties have not been in-

fringed in the ordinary case

where one seeks to recover com-

pensatory damages because of

false statements about character.

Compensatory damages may in-

clude so-called special damages,

that is, actual provable monetary

loss and general damages, award-

able in actions of libel per se, that

_ is, the recovery of damages even

when actual loss cannot be proved

when the false statement charges

dishonesty, immorality, criminal-

ity or professional unreliability

or misconduct.

4. Actions under libel laws

present a special problem to free

speech when false statements are

made about persons who hold or

have held political (i.e., public or

party, elective or appointive) of-

fice, and candidates for political

office. In order to permit the wid-

est scope for criticism and free

discussion, we believe that a false

statement about present or form-

er holders of political office and

candidates for political office, in

matters of public affairs, should

not be deemed actionable unless

proven with convincing clarity to

have been made with malice, By

malice we mean actual knowledge

of the falsity of the statement or

a reckless disregard of whether

or not it is false. Statements

about such persons not related to

matters of public affairs would,

of course, come under the general

rules of the libel law.

5. Criminal Libel-The ACLU

opposes all criminal prosecutions

for libel. We believe that the

award of damages in a civil action

provides an adequate remedy for

the libeled individual and that the

public interest in preventing def-

amation is not sufficient to justi-

fy the repressive effect which

criminal libel may have on free

expression.

Although our opposition to

criminal libel laws is not confined

to the operation of those laws in

cases where the defamed person

is or has been a holder of politi-

cal office or a candidate for of-

fice, we think it is important to

note that a disproportionate num-

ber of criminal libel prosecutions

occur in this context. The repres-

-sive effect of criminal libel laws

could' operate most strongly,

therefore, in the very area in

which it is vital that the greatest

possible scope be given to free

expression,

6. Group Libel. The ACLU op-

poses all so-called group libel

laws, whether such laws provide

for criminal prosecution or civil

remedy. Such laws have been en-

acted in a number of states and

in recent years, federal group

libel legislation has been pro-

posed. The Illinois group libel

statute was upheld by the United

States Supreme Court in Beau-

harnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S, 250

(1952), over vigorous dissent.

Group libel laws are aimed at

those who engage in false, abu-

sive attacks on racial, religious

or other groups within the society

and who promote, thereby, un-

reasoning hatred directed toward

such groups. Proponents of group

libel] laws note that the ordinary

law. of libel, whether applied

civilly or criminally, will not

reach defamers of a group ex-

cept in the unusual case where

the group is so small as to compel

the conclusion that each individ-

ual member of the group is neces-

sarily libeled by the defamatory

statement.

The characteristics which dis-

tinguish group libel from other

criminal libel situations, then, are

the special threat to society posed

by hatemongering- and the - ab-

sence of an available civil reme-

dy. Neither of these factors is

sufficient, in our opinion, to jus-

tify group libel legislation. The

type of statements sought to be.

proscribed by group libel laws,

like defamatory statements about

public officials: require protection

because they frequently will per-

tain to social and political issues

of public importance. While the

statements involved may well be

offensive and hateful, still it is

better that they be openly ex-

pressed and, therefore, accessible

to challenge and debate.

Marin Chapter

Condemns HUAC

The Board of Directors of the

Marin County Chapter of the

ACLUNC last month adopted a

resolution re-affirming its opposi-

tion to the House Committee on

Un-American Activities and re-

newed demands for its abolition.

The resolution noted that

HUAC had undertaken to investi-

gate the Ku Klux Klan. It de-

clared that "the committee has

demonstrated its inability to pro-

ceed with objective and produc-

tive inquiry under due process of

law, and has forfeited the re-

spect and support of the people."

The first right of a citizen

Is the right

To be responsible

AMERICAN CIVIL

JOIN TODAY

Geil

LIBERTIES UNION

OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Patron Membership .... .. 3... "ste sees ae. os. pIO0

Sustaining Membership .......

Business and Professional Membership as ee ee eee

50

25

eee ee 880828 and 8 0 6 (c) 68

Family Membership. .......2 0-3. +. eo ee A

Associate Membership 0... 5. .5355 5-426-522-2310.

AnnualoMembersnip-= 2... 5... 0. es ee ie

Student Membership

en ee ee Ge 220874 HF FFF and 6 0 (c) and 2

ACLU News Subscription ee ea

NAME.

ADDRESS. .

TELEPHONE NUMBER.....

eC SCHHCHECCHECHOCHOHHEEHHEHHEOH LOCOS HHSHHE HH OCHO.

ee eoeeeoe

SOSCHSHSCOCHOEHS OSH OHHHHSHHSHHHOHHOHSEHHHHHOHHFSCSTHHL EHH HF HHEHE

eCeeeeeoeee-

-AMT. ENCLOSED.

503 Market Street

San Francisco, 94105