vol. 32, no. 2

American

Civil Liberties

Union

Volume XXXil

Levering Act Oath

SAN FRANCISCO, FEBRUARY, 1967

Favorable

William and Rita Mack held teaching credentials until _

they were revoked in 1960 on the ground that they were

untruthful when they signed their Levering Act oaths stating

that they had not been members of any organization advo-

eating violent overthrow of the government. Because the

ACLU has always taken the posi-

tion that this oath is unconstitu-

tional, the ACLU has furnished _

counsel for the Macks throughout

the last seven years., Former

staff counsel Albert M. Bendich

started the case and Marshall W.

Krause has carried it on in recent

years,

~ Credentials Ordered Returned

On January 11 of this year San

Francisco Superior Court Judge

Joseph Karesh made his deci-

sion ordering that the State

Board of Education return the

credentials to Mr, and Mrs. Mack

" because there was no evidence

that they had falsified their

Levering Act oaths. A previous

decision against the Macks by

another superior court judge was

reversed after an appeal because

of the use of an unreliable ex-

Communist as a witness,

Former C. P, Membership :

The State Board of Education

claims that because the Macks

had been members of the Com-

munist Party they should not

have signed the oath without dis-

closing this fact. However, Judge

Karesh pointed out that the Lev-

ering Act oath does not mention

any organization by name and -

thus only requires that the sign-

ers give their best belief as to

the nature of any organization to ~

which they had belonged.

No Knowledge

Judge Karesh then said that

there was no evidence to con-

tradict the testimony of the

Macks that during their member-

ship in the Communist Party

they heard no advocacy of vio-

lent overthrow of the govern-

ment nor did they read any such

advocacy in any Party publica-

tions or literature. The State

Board of Education had conceded

that there was no evidence that

the Macks themselves ever ad-

vocated any violent action or any

illegal conduct of any kind, but

the State Board of Education

claimed that the Macks should

have known the nature of the

Communist Party by virtue of

certain legislative findings and

Mid-Peninsula

Meeting

February 24

The annual meeting of the

Mid-Peninsula Chapter of the

ACLUNC will be held Friday

| evening, February 24, at the

Parish Hall of All Saints Epis-

copal Church, Hamilton and

Waverley Streets, Palo Alto.

Paul Halvonik, Assistant Staff

Counsel and Legislative Rep-

resentative for the branch,

will speak on the "Threat to

Civil Liberties in the Legisla-

ture." :

In addition, there will be a

report on chapter activities by

Chairman Dr, John Marquis,

and an election of board mem-

bers, The public is welcome.

Number 2

Berk.-Albany

Chapter

Housewarming

This Sunday, February 5th,

`the Berkeley-Albany Chapter

will hold open house at its |

new office, 1919 Berkeley

Way, from 2 to 4 p.m. Mem-

bers and friends are invited

to drop in and see the facili-

ties, meet board members and

learn about ACLU activities

in Berkeley. Refreshments will

be served.

`judicial decisions concerning the

Communist Party,

Personal Beliefs

The ACLU pointed out to

Judge Karesh that even if it

were assumed that the legisla-

tive findings and judicial deci:

sions concerning the nature of

the Communist Party were in fact

true, there was no obligation on

the part of the Macks to accept

these findings as true and the

Levering Act oath asked for

their personal beliefs which they

truthfully gave. In restoring the

Macks' credentials Judge Karesh

did not reach the constitutional

issue-of the constitutionality of

the Levering Act oath which: had!

been extensively argued not only

by the ACLU but by numerous

amici curiae.

: Constitutional Issue

However, Judge Karesh did

discuss the constitutional issue in

his findings and pointed out that

the early decision of the Cali-

fornia Supreme Court in ~Pock-

man v. Leonard that the Levering

Act was constitutional was no

longer binding law in view of the

fundamental changes which have

-Continued on Page 4

ACLU. Benefit :

S.F. Showing of

McClure's `The

Beard' Feb. 17

Billie Dixon, Richard Bright

and Michael McClure will pre-

sent a benefit performance of

_McClure's controversial play

"The Beard" for ACLUNC on

February 17 in San Francisco.

The performance, starting at

8:30 p.m., will be held in the

Gold Room of the Sheraton-

Palace Hotel, San Francisco.

Tickets are $5 each. The ACLU

will receive everything above

the cost of the performance.

The performance will be fol-

lowed by a panel discussion

about the play. The panel is

made up of John Wasserman,

Drama Critic, San Francisco

Chronicle; Prof. Mark Linenthal, . ! cent ee

- News. Justice Tobriner, writing -

Ephraim Margolin, attorney and

ACLUNC branch board member,

and author Anthony Boucher.

Following the panel discussion

there will be a social hour in

which the audience will have an

opportunity to meet the actors,

the playwright and the discus-

sants.

ACLUNC Policy Statement

Conscientious Objection -

To a Particular

ar

The Board of Directors of ACLUNC at its December

1966 meeting voted to inform the National Board of ACLU

that the policy statement on Conscientious Objection to a

Particular War (see May 1966 issue of the ACLU News for

details) was acceptable as it

the National Board:

"a. stated firmly that ACLU is

-in. business to defend the

vight of conscience (as. a

manifestation of the free ex-

ercise of religion, protected

by the First Amendment)

and not merely pacifism, ab-

solute or particular, and that

therefore

*b. ACLU should strive to have

the claim for Exemption re-

quired of all those who peti-

tion for Conscientious Ob-

jector status (SSS Form 150,

revised 2-9-59 Page 1)

changed to read as folows: (c)

For 1-A-O status: `I must, for

reasons of conscience, refuse.

to accept combatant training

and service in the Armed

Forces.'

For 1-0 status: `I must, for

reasons of conscience, refuse

to accept both combatant and

noncombatant training and

service in the Armed

Forces.' "

Current draft regulations pro-

tect only absolute pacifism (`"`op-

- posed to participation in war in.

any form') and call for the peti-

tion to be based on "religious

belief and training." The sug-

gested revision proposed by the

ACLUNC. Board removes both

limitations. Importantly, it shifts

attention from "pacifism"

stood, but would be better if

(which has never had constitu-

tional protection) to

science" (which, it may be

argued, has First Amendment

protection).

The Board made clear that, at

this time, it urges the protec-

tion of conscience as it pertains

to military service only, though

it recognized that other areas of

conscientious protest may also

need protection.

Two Other Issues

The Board also approved the

other National Board policies on

war issues: first, not to protest

conscription itself as a violation

of civil liberties, and second, that

the absence of a formal declara-

tion of war "in and of itself'

does not raise a civil liberties is-

sue, though tough constitution-

al questions, needing further

study, obviously adhere to the

current state of affairs concern-

ing Vietnam. (Again, see the

May 1966 issue of the ACLU

News for further details).

Cases Sought

Finally, the Board directed

that letters be sent to all chap-

ters of ACLUNC, urging them to

inform the Board of any cases

wherein civil liberties questions

arise from local draft board ac-

tions. -

"con- .

Public Employees

On January 4 the California Supreme Court in a 6-(o-1

decision reversed the decision of the Alameda County Supe-

rior Court that Dr. Geraid Rosenfield could not complain of

his dismissal as assistant county health officer for Alameda

County. Dr. Rosenfield had alleged in a complaint filed in

Alameda County Superior Court

that his superior, Dr. James Mal-

colm, had fired him because he

(Dr. Rosenfield) had refused

Malcolm's direction to resign

from the Ad Hoc Commitiee to.

End Discrimination, an Oakland

civil rights organization. The

County of Oakland had argued

that since Dr, Rosenfield had

only been employed a very short

time, he had no civil service

status and thus could be fired

for any reason and he could not

inquire into the reason for his

dismissal in a lawsuit, The trial

court accepted this argument and

sustained-a demurrer to Dr. Ro-

senfield's complaint. Se

Political Activity

The Supreme Court decision in

favor of Dr, Rosenfield follows

closely on the heels of another

decision favoring the right of

public employees to engage in

`political -activity without dis-

crimination by their superiors,

Bagley v. Washington Township

Hospital District, discussed in

the January issue of the ACLU

for the court in Rosenfield, point-

ed out that the Bagley decision

had held that "a governmental

agency which wotid require a

waiver of constitutional rights

`as a condition of public employ-

ment must demonstrate (1) that

the political restraints rationally

relate to the enhancement of

the public service, (2) that the

benefits which the public gains

by. the restraints outweigh the -

resulting impairment of constitu-

tional rights, and (3) that no

alternatives less. subversive of

constitutional rights are avail-

able." Justice Tobriner continues:

"In the present case defendant

makes no attempt to sustain such

a burden. Rather, he calls atten-

tion to the fact that Dr. Rosen-

field had not yet attained pro-

tected civil service status at the

time of his dismissal . . . [and

claims] the reasons which moti-

May 20 Privacy

Conference Will

`Hear Douglas

The ACLU of Northern Cali-

fornia, together with San Fran-

cisco State College, will hold an

`all-day conference on the college

campus on Saturday, May 20.

The subject of the conference is

"Privacy in a Crowding World."

Now is the time to set aside the

date on your calendars, especial-

ly since attendance will be

limited to 750 persons.

The general admission charge

is $12, which includes the dinner

at which Justice William O.

Douglas is the main speaker.

Students will be charged $6 but

that does not include dinner.

Besides Justice Douglas, other -

headliners from the East are

Prof. Alan Westin, Willard Clop-

ton, of the Washington Post and -

Hal Lipset, "Private Eye" of San

Francisco, an expert on wire-tap-

ping and eavesdropping devices.

Further information about the

. conference will be contained in

the next issue of the NEWS, In

the meantime, the important

thing is to save the date.

vated that dismissal are not sub-

ject to judicial scrutiny."

No Unbounded Power

Justice Tobriner answered

these arguments by stating: "The

ultimate boundaries of plaintift's

rights are set not by the rules

of the Alameda County Civil

Service Commission but by the

-Constitution of the United States.

When defendant urges that the

absence of any statutory restric-

tion on his freedom to dismiss

plaintiff vested him with the

right to dismiss plaintiff for any

`reason whatsoever, he reverts to

the hoary fallacy that govern-

ment possesses an unbounded

power to condition public em, (c)

ployment upon a waiver of con-

stitutional rights." Justice To-

briner continued: "When the ree-

ord in a given case clearly estab-

lishes that unconstitutional con-

ditions have been imposed upon

the retention in public employ-

ment, we cannot permit the def-

erence which we would otherwise

accord administrative determina-

tions to bar us from discharging

our obligation to protect over-

riding *constitutional vights. . ..

Accordingly, we must assume for -

present purposes that defendant

is asserting a broad power to dis-

charge his subordinates when-

-Continued on Page 3

The preliminary hearing into

the question of whether Lenore

Kandel's slim book of poetry

ealled "The Love Book" can

form the basis for an obscenity

charge came before San Fran-

cisco Municipal Court Judge Jo-

seph Kennedy on Friday, January

27, Three arrests were made

for the sale of the book of poems,

one at City Lights Bookstore

and two at the Psychedelic Book

Shop, ACLU counsel, who are

handling the defense, asked

Judge Kennedy to dismiss the

charge before trial even though

it is only a misdemeanor and

not usually subject to a prelimi-

nary hearing. They argued that

"The Love Book" is not obscene

as a matter of law and this con-

stitutional question must be

passed upon before trial. Judge

`Kennedy agreed with this. argu-

ment and at first set the hear-

ing before three municipal court

judges, but then the plan was

changed and he heard the matter

as a single judge.

Scheduled to testify about the

poems and the poet are Miss.

Kandel herself, who has pub-

lished in many small _periodi-

cals and has read the same poeins

now charged with being `"ob-

scene" before audiences of thou-

sands of university students, Dr.

Joel Fort, medical director at

San Francisco's Center for Spe-

cial Problems, Prof. Thomas

Parkinson of the University of

California English Department,

Rev. Cecil Williams of the Glide

Foundation, Father Robert Bro-

phy of the Enelish Department

at USF, Prof. James Schevill,

Director of San Francisco State's

Poetry Center, and Pruf. Mark

Linenthal of the English Depart.

ment of San Francisco State,

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NEWS

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

ERNEST BESIG .. . Editor

503 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105, 433-2750

Subscription Rates -- Two Dollars a Year

Twenty. Cents Per Copy

Be 151

ae

~ Ralph B. Atkinson

Dr. Alfred Azevedo

Mrs. Judith Balderston

Albert M. Bendich

Leo Borregard

Albert Culhane

Mrs. Natalie Dukes

Prof. John Edwards

Howard A, Friedman

Rebert Greensfelder

Rey. Aron S. Gilmartin

Evelio Grifio

Mrs. Zora Cheever Gross.

Francis Heisler

Neil F. Horton

Howard H. Jewel

Honorary Treasurer:

_ Joseph S. Thompson

Honorary Board Member:

Sara Bard Field

Mrs. Gladys Brown

Mrs. Paul Couture

Mrs. Margaret C. Hayes

_ Prof. Carlo Lastrucci

John J, Eagan

Joseph Eichler

Dr. H. H. Fisher

Prof. Ernest Hilgard

Board of Directors cf the American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California.

CHAIRMAN: Prof. Van D. Kennedy |

VICE-CHAIRMEN: Rabbi Alvia [. Fine Be

Helen Saiz g

SEC'Y-TREAS.: John R. May

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Ernest Besig

GENERAL COUNSEL: Wayne M. Collins

STAFF COUNSEL: Marshall W. Krause

ASST. STAFF COUNSEL and LEGIS. REP.: Paul Halvonik

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: Mrs. Pamela S. Ford

CHAPTER DIRECTOR: Mrs. Marcia D. Lang

Committee of peenects

Mrs. Paul Holmer

Mrs. Mary Hutchinson oe Wallace Stegner

Morse Erskine _

Prof. Wilson Record

Dean Rebert A. Keller

Prof. David Levin

Gerald D. Marcus

Ephraim Margolin

Pref. John Henry Merryman

Robert L. Nelan, M.D.

Prof. Rebert M. O'Neil

Frederick $. Reinheimer

Clarence E. Rust

John Brisbin Rutherford

Mrs. Alec Skolnick

Stanley D. Stevens

Stephen Thiermann

Cecil Thomas

Donald Vial

Richard J. Werthimer

. Marvin J. Naman

te Theodosia Stewart

Rt. Rev. Sumner Walters

Richard Johnston

Roger Kent

Mrs. Ruth Kingman

Prof. Theodore Kreps

Rey. ee W. Moon

Norman Reider

Prof Hubert Phillips

Norman Lezin

When the Founding Fathers cdrefully guaranteed in the

First Amendment "the right of the people peaceably to as-

semble, and to petition the Government for a redress of

grievances," one question was left unanswered: Where?

For years, it did not make much difference, because

Americans were little inclined to

protest in public, and less to liti-

gate their rights to protest.

`Glaring Exception

One glaring exception was the

Jehovah's Witnesses who in nu-

merous lawsuits litigated the

"where" of the First Amendment,

and established the principle that,

in general, public property -

parks, sidewalks, streets - could

not be denied to people who

wished to peacefully air their

views.

To prevent undue inconvenience

to the public, the right to demon-

strate was always held subject to

reasonable restrictions, such as

the typical local ordinance that

requires demonstrators to notify

the authorities in advance and get

a parade permit. However, these

restrictions have to be applied

without discrimination, |

Civil Rights Protests

So when the civil rights revolu-

tion turned in the last decade to

massive, persistent protests that

constituted-in theory, at least-

a threat to law and order, it was

operating under rules designed to

regulate a few harmless religious

pamphleteers.

In the early 1960's, this aspect

ef the Negro protest movement

was obscured by the fact that

their grievances were so obvious-

ly justified and the authorities'

suppression of their protests so

blatantly motivated by racial bias.

A ritual developed. The state

eourts would uphold the Negroes'

eenvictions for disturbing the

peace and the Supreme Court

ACLU NEWS

FEBRUARY, 1967

Page 2

would throw the convictions out

-usually by a unanimous or

near-unanimous vote-by holding

that the demonstrators had a

right to be where they were and

that their protests did not amount

to an offense.

Unjust Laws

But the consistent upholding of

the demonstrators' rights created

a euphoria. Dr. Martin Luther

King Jr, claimed the right for

Negroes to violate "unjust" laws,

and the size of the demonstra-

tions grew,

Significantly, the break on the

Supreme Court, in 1964, came in

a case involving 2,000 demonstra-

tors, in a march to the courthouse

at Baton Rouge, La..

Justice Hugo L. Black, an ar-

dent advocate of free " speech,

broke from the majority and

sounded a warning: : !

"It is not a far step from what

to many seems the earnest, hon-

est, patriotic, kind-spirited multi-

tude of today, to the fanatical,

threatening, lawless mob of to-

morrow." e

Judicial Backlash

From that point, a judicial

"backlash" against protest ex-

cesses began to develop, as the

Court's senior justice voted in

each case to uphold the con-

victions.

Demonstrators, he said, "have

no right to go wherever they

want, whenever they please, with-

out regard to the rights of private

or public property or state law."

Until this week Justice Black

could not marshall a majority to

uphold demonstrators' convic-

tions, but on Monday, Justice By-

ron R. White, who had been the

"swing man" in recent 5-to-4 de-

cisions, sided with Justices Black

-Continued on Page 3

erryman's

Courts should place "a very

heavy burden of proof" on would-

be book banners, Prof. John

Henry Merryman of the Stanford

School of Law believes.

As it is, the censorious have

smoothly persuaded society to

enact laws "which require the

rest of us to prove that the books

they want to suppress have liter-

ary value, redeeming social im-

portance, or some similar pre-

tentiousness," he declares.

A former law librarian and a

current. board member of the

American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California, Merry-

man sharply attacks "The Fear

of Books" in a copyrighted ar-

ticle in the current issue of

Stanford Today, the University's

quarterly magazine.

Criticism and Censorship

He draws a sharp line between

criticism and censorship: "The

critic of dirty books who seeks

to persuade others to alter their

reading habits is exercising his

constitutional right to free ex-

pression. He is operating com-

petitively in the marketplace of

ideas in the best American tra-

dition.

"But censorship is the reverse

of the free marketplace; it is

state control over ideas .. ."

Requirements for Censorship

Before approving state inter-

vention in the realm of ideas, he

suggests, citizens should require

would-be censors to prove that

1) there is a genuine prospect

that dirty books will lead to so-

cially undesirable behavior, 2)

little or nothing of social value

will be lost by their repression,

and 3) the method of legal con-

trol advocated is not likely to

cause more social harm than it

will prevent.

"When that case is nde: all

of us should join in the cam-

paign for censorship," he de-

clares.

Socially Undesirable Behavior

So far, however, advocates of

censorship "have yet to produce

any evidence" that what people

read leads to socially undesirable

behavior, he contends. In fact,

studies of juvenile delinquency

have shown that those who get

into trouble are "far less in-

clined" to read.

"What censor ... after steep-

ing himself in obscenity in the

line of duty, has consequently

become a sex criminal?" Merry-

man asks. "Reading does not

create the appetite, it feeds it,

whether the reader be sex crimi-

nal or compulsive censor."

Court Opinions

He describes court opinions in

censorship cases generally as "a

sorry lot" and adds: "The rec-

ord of censors is, on the whole,

bad. The demand for censorship

does not come from persons who

want their own morals protected.

The censorious want to save the

rest of us, not by persuasion, but

by imposition. =

"They are zealous, self-

righteous missionaries in the

service of a militant faith. How-

ever carefully and temperately a

law is drawn, its enforcement will

come into their intemperate

hands. They are the ones who

care." , :

Debasing and Distorting

Besides providing an_ oppor-

tunity for private individuals and

groups to impose their standards

on the community, censorship

"has a debasing and distorting

effect on the work of art," he

adds.

"A book which has been

banned is subsequently ap-

proached with curiosity focused

on its wickedness, and its value

as literature suffers."

Underscoring

between censorship and criticism,

he concludes: "In a free society

a citizen has a power to choose,

`and bears responsibility for the

choices he makes. Censorship

laws deprive us of choice and

responsibility. They diminish us,

and they diminish our society."

the difference

Two ACLU Challenges :

In 1961 the California Legislature reached what it

thought was a compromise between police demands to be

able to detain and question any "suspect" at any time and

constitutional demands of protection against search, seizure,

and invasions of privacy by enacting Penal Code section

647(e). This section reads:

"(Every person) who loiters or

wanders upon the streets or

from place to place without ap-

parent reason or business and.

who refuses to identify himself

and to account for his presence

whien requested by any peace of-

ficer to do so, if the surround-

ing circumstances are such as to

indicate to a reasonable man that

the public safety demands such

identification (is guilty of dis-

orderly conduct, a misdemean-

or)." The ACLU has opposed the

enforcement of this section,

arguing its unconstitutionality

on several grounds in numerous

eases. Most of these failed to

produce any precedent on the

question as the defendant was

acquitted. However, it seems

that the matter can now be

definitively decided because of

two cases now being handled by

the ACLU, one in the appellate

cepartment of the superior court

of Los Angeles County and one

ir the appellate department of

the superior court for San Fran-

cisco.

San Francisco Case

The San Francisco case in-

volves Dean Plagowski who

plead "no contest" to a charge

of 647(e) and then received _per-

mission to appeal on the basis of

the asserted unconstitutionality

of the section. Mr. Plagowski's

appeal which has been handled

by volunteer attorney Richard

Peritz, is scheduled to be argued

-February 10 before the appellate

department of the superior court

in San Francisco. His case will

be considerably aided by a de-

cision of the appellate depart-

ment in Los Angeles in People

v. Weger, decided January 6,

1967. The Weger case was han-

dled by the ACLU of Southern

California with the assistance of

volunteer attorney Allen I.

Neiman. Judge Hufstedler, writ-

ing for the appellate depart-

ment, found section 647(e) un-

ccnstitutional on its face after a

careful analysis of its history and

probable meaning. Judge Huf-

stedler recognized that section

647(e) is a variant on the tradi-

tional vagrancy statute making

persons who loiter or idle the

subjects of police concern. The

opinion states: "A variety of ap-

proaches has been used and pro-

pesed to provide a supportable

foundation for detaining and

questioning suspicious . persons.

Of these the most venerable is

the vagrancy statute making

socially undesirable .status, ac-

companied by affirmative acts, a

crime, or making equivocal con-

duct, not itself amounting to any

other specific acts, a crime. If

the crime is thus defined in

language of substantial flexibili-

ty, reasonable cause to arrest for

that crime becomes equally flex-

ible, permitting law enforcement

officers to arrest on little more

than suspicion." The judge

points out that the 1961 revision"

of the vagrancy law was in-

tended to eliminate such crimes

oi status and to punish only "dis-

orderly acts."

Legislative History

The judge then examined the

legislative history of section

647(e) and sharply questions the

assumption of its drafter (Prof.

Arthur Sherry of the UC Law

School) that existing California

- law. allows peace officers to

question `suspicious loiterers"

and require tiem to identify

tuemselves and explain the rea-

sons for their presence. The

judge concludes: "Two things (c)

are apparent: First, there was

no clear-cut authority in Cali- |

fornia supporting the right of

the police to detain a suspicious

- person for investigation at the

`time Professor Sherry drafted

Tsection 647(e) }; and second, the

authority which did exist did not

purport to validate any duty on

the part of the suspicious person

te respond to the interrogation.

Nothing in the cases upon which

Professor Sherry relied even sug-

gested that the detained person's

failure to cooperate by answer-

ing police inquiries was, or could

ke made, a crime in the name of

vagrancy, or disorderly conduct,

or any other newly-minted of-

fense. Professor. Sherry's. draft

states the right of law enforce-

ment officers in conducting an

investigation in terms of duties,

enforced by criminal sanctions,

imposed upon those suspected

of crime, and thereby confuses

both rights and duties."

Supreme Court Cases

The Weger decision then dis-

cusses the recent U.S. Supreme

Court cases requiring that a sus-

pect be warned that he has no

obligation to make any state-

ments when he is suspected of a

a crime and finds that section

647(e) is incompatible with

these requirements if the police-

man in fact has reasonable cause

to believe that the person he

wishes to question has com-

mitted some crime other than

section 647(e). Of course, a

policeman could not question on

the basis of a suspicion that

647(e) has been violated, since

that section is not violated until

answers are not given. The court

then concludes that arresting a

person for not answering ques-

tions when there was insufficient

cause to make an arrest in the

first place would itself be a vio-

lation of both the Fourth

Amendment protection against

self-incrimination. Therefore it

follows that 647(e) is unconstitu-

tienal to the extent that it pro-

vides a eriminal penalty for fail-

ure to answer a policeman's

questions. The court points out

that it does not follow that

647(e) is unconstitutional insofar

as it allows a policeman to stop

pound person and ask questions.

`High Court Action Possible

It is quite possible that one or

both of these cases will go on to

higher courts, either by the cer-

- tification process or by a writ of

habeas corpus should the Pla-

gowski conviction be affirmed.

New York's "stop and frisk" law

is now before the United States

Supreme Court and if that law is

held unconstitutional it would

add great weight to the argu-

ment that California's law in this

area is.also unconstitutional. :

and bring their friends.

The Santa Clara Chapter will hold its annual membership

meeting on Thursday evening, February 16, at 8 o'clock, in

Room 100 of the Education Building, San Jose State College

(corner of San Carlos and 7th Streets, San Jose).

Chapter Board officers will be elected, and following the ~

election there will be a discussion of "The Civil Liberties

Program for the Current Session of the Legislature."

Speakers will include: Paul Halvonik, ACLUNC Legislative

Representative and Assistant Staff Counsel, and the two newly-

elected assemblymen from the 24th and 25th districts, Messrs,

John B. Vasconcellos and Earle P. Crandall.

The meeting is.open to the public and all ACLUNC mem-

bers residing within the Santa Clara area are urged to attend

Poul ealcnne s Report

The 1967 Legislative session has begun rather slowly.

The Democrats control both houses by slim margins. The

Governor, on the other hand, is a Republican and a Repub-

lican who defeated an incumbent by almost one million

votes. This state of affairs has engendered a wait-and-see

attitude on the part of most

legislators. They are waiting for

the governor's legislative pro-

gram and they have yet to See it.

Reagan's Program Committee

Reagan's program is being pre-

pared by a committee composed

of three members of each house.

They are Senators George Deuk-

mejian (Long Beach), John Mc-

Carthy (Marin), Donald Grun-

sky (Santa Cruz), and Assembly-

man Victor Vaysey (Brawley),

Charles Conrad (Sherman Oakes)

and Robert Monagan (Stockton).

Deukmejian, a freshman senator

with experience in the lower

house, chairs the committee.

Deukmejian has already intro-

duced a bill (SB 88) designed to

inhibit challenges to evidence se-

cured by unlawful police proce-

dures. Whether it should be con-

sidered part of the Governor's

"crime package" is not yet clear.

Suppressive Measures

- Although the session has been

slow in starting, a number of bills

detrimental to civil liberty and

civil rights have. been introduced

in both houses.

/ ABI (Bedhan) and SB 9

(Sehmitz) are Rumford Act re-

pealers, Schmitz (R-Orange Coun-

ty) has also introduced SB 14,

which would amend the Unruh

Act (no discrimination by a "busi-

ness establishment'') to its pre-

1859 "public accommodations"

language. Senator Schmitz would

also add to the public accommo-

dations section language making

it abundantly clear that Califor-

nia has no fair housing law.

Rumford Repealers

Prospects for the defeat of

Rumford repealers are not as dim

as they seemed a few months

ago. It is the feeling of a number

of powerful legislators that modi-

fication may be in order but that

outright repeal would be disas-

trous. Moreover, in his inaugural

address, Governor Reagan said

"There are other problems and

possible problems facing us. One

such is now pending before the

United States Supreme Court. I

believe it would be inappropriate

to discuss that matter now, but

we will be prepared with reme-

dial legislation we devoutly hope

will be satisfactory to all of our

citizens if court rulings make this

necessary."

This reference to the certorari

writ granted by the U. S. Su-

preme Court in the Proposition

14 case suggests that the Gov-

ernor will not be pressing for

Rumford repeal unless and until

the U. S. Supreme Court upholds

the decision of the California

Supreme Court.

Obscenity Bills

Bis dealing with. obscenity

have also been introduced in both

houses.

Assemblyman Deddeh's (D-

Chula Vista) AB 9 would prohib-

it the distribution of "indecent

matter" to persons under 18

years of age. Indecent matter is

broadly defined to include viola-

tions of various penal code sec-

tions, descriptions of "sexual im-

morality" and the exposure to

view of certain parts of the hu-

man anatomy. An innovation in

the obscenity field is a provision

making it a misdemeanor for a

child to possess indecent matter.

Lynch-Finch Bills

On the Senate side, Senator

Lagomarsino (R-Ventura) has in-

troduced SB 78 and SB 79. These

obscenity measures are supposed

to have the support of Attorney

General Tom Lynch, Lt. Governor

Finch and perhaps Governor Rea-

gan. Popularly and euphoniously

known at the Lynch-Finch bills, ~

SB 78 is an unnecessary attempt

to incorporate the U.S. Supreme

Court's Mishkin and Ginzberg

opinions into California law and

SB 79 is another "children's" bill.

Both are replete with constitu-

tional infirmities. Read together

they look suspiciously like Propo-

sition 16. One would think the

electorate's response to Proposi-

tion 16 could not be justifiably

interpreted as mandate for such

bills. .

Other Bills

A number of other bills with

civil liberties implications in

such diverse fields as elections,

criminal law, searches, civil

rights and loyalty have been in-

troduced. It is difficult to make

any assessment of the chances

these measures have for pas-

sage because, at the time of

writing, committee chairmen and.

members have not, with the ex-

ception of the Rules Committees,

been appointed in either house.

These appointments will proba-

bly be made by the end of

January.

Criminal Procedure Cann

A most important committee

from ACLUNC's standpoint is the

Assembly Criminal Procedure

Committee. More than any other

committee it deals with bills of

civil liberty import. Rumor and

deduction point to Craig Biddle

(R-Riverside) as the most likely

chairman. Biddle, quondam Riv-

erside Public Defender, is a

lawyer skilled in criminal law.

With Biddle as chairman the

Criminal Procedure Committee

may well continue to be a grave-

yard for much unconstitutional

legislation. - Paul N. Halvonick,

Ass't. Staff Counsel and Legisla-

tive Representative.

(Copies of bills mentioned in

Supreme Court

Tightens Rule on

Demonstrations

Continued from Page 2-

and Tom C. Clark, John M. Har-

Jan and Potter Stewart.

' Five-Man Majority

This created a five-man major-

ity that affirmed the convictions

of Southern Negro demonstrators

_ for the first time since the civil

rights movement began.

The Court ruled that the police-

men in Tallahassee, Fla., acted le-

gally when they arrested 32 dem-

onstrators for trespassing, after

the Negroes had refused the sher-

iff's order to leave the jailhouse

grounds,

Whether the decision was "a

great break with the traditions of

the Court," as Justice William O.

Douglas charged, remaing to be

seen,

Immediate Question

For now that the Supreme

Court has posted a "public prop-

erty-no trespassing" warning on

the nation's jailhouse yards, the

unanswered "where?" of the free-

dom of assembly guarantee be-

comes an immediate question.

The inevitable conflict between

the desire of demonstrators to im-

press the largest number of peo-

ple, versus the authorities' de-

termination to conduct business

ee

`as usual, is illustrated by an ap-

peal now waiting to be heard in

the Supreme Court.

New York police, citing traffic

problems, banned meetings in

mid-town Manhattan. Opponents

of the Vietnam war, contending

that a rally in suburbia would

be pointless, staged a protest

speech near Times Square.

Police Break Up Meeting

So the police broke up the

meeting and arrested its leaders

-incidentally giving them the

publicity they desired.

The point, as Justice Douglas

observed in his dissent Monday,

is that in an age of `mass com-

munications, "those who do not

contro] television and radio, those

who cannot afford to advertise

in newspapers," cannot get their

message across unless dramatic,

visible demonstrations are al-

lowed - perhaps at some incon-

venience to the authorities and

the public.

[The foregoing article by Fred

D. Graham appeared in a recent

issue of the New York Times. }

Federal Court Suit

New Try

The Case of Albert Romero

Trea

sure island 0x00B0*

The ACLU intervened last month for Albert Donald

Romero, 19, of Stockton, a member of the U.S. Naval Re-

serve stationed at Treasure Island who has refused to par-

ticipate in any activities of the Armed Forces on grounds of (c)

eonscience. Romero enlisted

attending high school. About a

year ago, with a Roman Catholic

background, he joined the

Church of Christ. Thereafter he

refused to attend the regular

meetings of his Reserve unit and,

as a result, he was called into

active duty on October 24,

Captain's Mast

After reporting, Romero re-

fused to obey orders and -was

brought before the Captain's Mast

on October 31. He received 10

days restriction, which means

that he was restricted to his

quarters and not allowed to leave

the base. On November 30 he

was ordered "to put his gear in

his seabag and. leave on the draft

he was assigned to" but he dis-

obeyed the order. In conse-

quence, he was again charged

with violating the Uniform Code

of Military Justice and given a

Summary Court Martial.

Summary. Court Martial

At the court martial Romero

was represented by Ernest Besig,

the ACLU's executive director.

After a two-hour hearing at

which three Church of Christ

ministers testified on behalf of

Romero, the hearing officer

found Romero guilty of the

charges and once again he was

sentenced to 10 days restriction.

All three ministers testified as

to the sincerity of Romero's po-

sition and Romero himself testi-

fied that no matter what hap-

pened to him, he will not serve

in the Armed Forces.

The Church's Pacifist Position

Some years ago, the editor of

the church's official publication

filed a letter with the then Sec-

retary of War setting forth the_

group's position with respect to

its members "engaging in carnal

war." The letter declared that

"more than 90% of the members

of the Church of Christ are op-

posed to its members taking hu-

man life in Carnal War, and that

We have and do claim the exemp-

tions granted to the conscien-

tious objector." The letter went

in Thomas

Budd Alcoholism Case

The ACLU of Northern California continues in its at-

tempt to establish the constitutional principle that a person

suffering from the disease of alcoholism cannot be convicted

of a crime merely for exhibiting his symptoms in public. The

ACLU of Northern California believes that laws punishing

common drunkenness cannot con-

stitutionally be applied to chronic

alcoholics because of the prohi-

bition against cruel and unusual

punishment in the Eighth Amend-

ment. Thomas F, Budd was con-

victed of this crime (Penal Code

sec. 647f) in the Oakland Mu-

nicipal Court despite the fact that

the record contained uncontra-

dicted expert medical testimony

that Budd was an alcoholic and

had no volition over his drinking

or his urge to drink.

Certiorari Denied

Budd's conviction was affirmed

and the Califernia Supreme

Court denied habeas corpus, The

United States Supreme Court de-

nied a petition for certiorari,

thus refusing to hear the case,

over the vigorous dissents of

Justices Fortas and Douglas who

strongly expressed themselves in

favor of the ACLU position.

Federal Court

Now a new attempt is being

the foregoing article may be

secured by writing to the

Legislative Bill Roem, State

Capitel, Sacramento.)

made to bring the Budd case be-

fore the attention of the federal

courts. On December 29, 1966,

staff counsel Marshall W, Krause

and volunteer attorney George

F. Duke filed a petition for a

writ of habeas corpus in the

Federal District Court and after

a hearing District Judge Oliver

J. Carter ordered the Sheriff of

Alameda County to show cause

why he should not be prohibited

from carrying out Budd's sen-

tence. Thus once again the

constitutional issue can be raised

and a new attempt made to get

a ruling which would apply

nation-wide from the United

States Supreme Court.

Previous Rulings

The court's previous decision

denying certiorari was not a

judgment on the merits but

merely an indication that, for

some reason, the court did not

want to hear the case. Already

federal courts in other areas

of the country have ruled that

it is unconstitutional to punish

aleoholics as criminals and it is

hoped that the federal courts

in this area will follow. suit.

in the Naval Reserve while

on to say that "The majority of

the faithful, preachers, bishops,

members have always contended

that the Lord's statement, `Love

your enemies, bless them that

curse you, do good to them that

hate you, and pray for them that

despitefully use you, and perse-

cute you,' cannot be broken ex-

cept at the sacrifice of the per-

petrator's soul's eternal happi-

ness."

Administrative Discharge Denied

Romero sought an administra-

tive discharge from the Naval .

Reserve as a conscientious objec-

tor, but his application was de-

nied. During the iast eighteen _

months or more, or since the |

Vietnam war heated up, this has

been the decision on such appli-

cations. It was true, of course, in

the Christensen case, which is

now pending before the U.S. Dis-

trict Court in San Francisco. In-

cidentally, Romero has refused to

accept pay from the Navy.

Faces Another Court Martial

The chances are good that after

Romero completes 10 days re-

striction he will again be given

orders which he will refuse to

obey. In consequence, he will

again he-court martialed. It is

likely, however, that a Special or

a General court martial will be

convened by the Commanding

Officer. The previous Summary

court martial was limited in the

kind of puishment it could give |

(no more than 30 days in the

brig, etc.). The Special and Gen-

eral court martial can assess very

serious penalties. The ACLU will

continue to represent Romero

until the issue is finally resolved.

Dr. Rosenfield

Wins Supreme

Court Victory

Continued from Page 1-

ever their involvement in politi-

cal or social activities becomes

displeasing to him, whether or

not that involvement threatens in

any way to impair the efficiency

or subvert the integrity of the

agency which he directs. Under

such circumstances we cannot

accept defendant's contention

that we are bound by his discre-

tion."

Administrative Remedies

Lastly, Justice Tobriner dis--

poses of Alameda County's argu-

ment that Dr. Rosenfield failed to

exhaust his administrative reme-

dies by pointing out that the

County only raised this point for

the first time on oral argument

before the Supreme Court and

that this pesition totally conflicts

with the position which it took

in the trial court. The opinion

then examines the administrative

remedies which the County re-

lied upon in its newly-found argu-

ments and finds them non-exis-

tent. In a footnote to the opinion

the County is taken to task for

attempting to "foster the im-

pression" that it relied upon

these administrative sections

from the outset.

Back Wages Will be Sought

Dr. Rosenfield is now employed

at Mt. Zion Hospital but lost

some $8,000 in wages after he

was fired by Alameda County

for his political associations. Dr.

Rosenfield will now attempt to

collect

damage from the County.

The case was handled by volun-

teer attorney James McCall with

the assistance of ACLUNC staff

counse] Marshall W. Krause,

ACLU NEWS

FEBRUARY, 1967

Page 3

compensation for this

with various special meetings.

follows:

| Tel: 433-2750

Berkeley, Tel: 548-1322

Tel: 485-2482

ley, Tel: 388-9127

' Orinda, Tel: 254-8058

Monterey, Tel: 375-1341

Stockton, Tel: 462-0516

New tie Drive -

0 New

ACLUNC's annual membership drive to get 800 new

workers is in preparation. Volunteers for many different

kinds of work are being sought. The Office in San Francisco _

now has need of additional people to-help check membership

records, type names of prospects, stuff envelopes, and help

Ordinarily the Office is not open. on Saturdays, but for the

next three months it will be open between 9 and 12. Members

able to help only on Saturdays are urged to do so.

The ten chapters will be responsible for the drive in their

own areas and also will need all the help they can get.

Anyone willing to help in the membership drive who has

not yet volunteered, or been contacted, should get in touch

directly with Office or his chapter membership chairman, as

San Francisco Office - 503 Market Street, San Francisco,

Berkeley/Albany Chapter Office - 1919 Berkeley Way,

Fresno Chapter, Mr. Russell K. Grove, 475 N, Blane

Marin Chapter, Mrs. Edith Freeman, 183 Molino, Mul Val-

Mid-Peninsula Chapter, Mr. Harry Lewenstein, 3348 Middle-

field Rd., Palo Alto, Tel: DA 1-4043

Mount Diablo `Chapter, Dr. Jack Lewis, 45 Oak Drive,

Monterey Chapter, Miss Ethel Sheehan, 835 Lily Street,

Sacramento Chapter, Mrs. Meredith Crown, 2121 Landon |

Lane, Sacramento, Tel: 484-2672

Santa Cruz Chapter, Dr. Duncan Holbert, `125 Crystal Ter- |

race, Santa Cruz, Tel: 423-7234

Santa Clara Chapter, Prof. Theo. Balgooyen, 19271 Valle

Vista Drive, Saratoga, Tel: 354-9659

Stockton Chapter, Mrs. J. Ww. Phillips, 441 N Central _Ave.,

Sonoma County Council, ACLUNC, Prof. Sam Bullen, 7277

Barbi Lane, Rohnert Park, Tel: 795- 7485

lembers

to above,

Sen. Dirksen

Revives

Prayer Issue

Sen, Everett Dirksen of Iili-_

nois has launched another battle -

for school prayers. His proposal,

however, would cover all public

buildings. It provides. that noth-

ing contained in the Constitution

shall abridge the right of per-

sons lawfully assembled in any

public building to "participate

in non-denominational prayer.

-Last year, Dirksen, proposed

that nothing in the Constitution

shail prohibit the "authority ad-

ministering any public school or

other public building" from "pro-

viding for or permitting the vol-

untary participation by students

or others in prayer." That pro-

posal fell nine votes short of the

two-thirds required for passage

of a constitutional amendment.

The vote was 49 to 37.'

Fresno

Chapter

Meets Feb. 16

"Academic Freedom-Poli-

cies and Problems" will be the

topic of a panel discussion at

a February 16 dinner meeting

of the Fresno Chapter of the

"American Civil Liberties Un-

ion,

Dr. Dale Burtner, Dean of

Arts and Sciences at Fresno

State College, will be the

Moderator. Panelists-all from

Fresno City Schools-will be

Mrs. Helen Byde, an elemen-

tary teacher and past presi-

dent of the Fresno Teachers'

Association; Robert Lewellen,

high school teacher and presi-

dent of the American Federa-

tion of Teachers local; and

Robert Miner, Assistant Super-

intendent of Secondary Educa-

tion.

. The meeting will be held at

the Basque Hotel, 1102 "F"

Street, commencing with a so-

cial hour from 6:30 to 7:30.

The dinner and meeting fol-

lowing are open to the public.

Reservations for the dinner at

$3.00 a plate may be made by

calling 485-2482, 251-8725, or

229-8486.

ACLU NEWS

FEBRUARY, 1967

Page 4

IPs

Support for

Legislative

Program

The branch's new legislative

program, which is largely re-

sponsible for an increase of 24% _

in the current budget, is receiv-

ing strong financial backing

from some of the chapters.

The Record

The Santa Cruz County chap-~

ter recently contributed $300 to

the legislative program, -while

"the Berkeley-Albany Chapter

has just voted a $125 contribu--

tion. The Marin County Chapter

has had a one-man task force in

the person of Milen Dempster

soliciting extra contributions

from members with excellent re-

sults. The Mid-Peninsula Chap-

ter has just undertaken to raise

funds for the legislative pro-

gram in its area.

Impending Deficit

For the first three months of

the current fiscal year member-

ship contributions are running

about 13% or $6,000 ahead of

last year's contributions. How-

ever, the legislative program

alone adds $16,500 to the

branch's budget, while increased

operating costs added $6500 to

the budget. At the present rate

of giving and spending the

branch will suffer a deficit of at-

least $10,000 during the current (c)

fiscal year. This may be pared

down somewhat by bequests

which may be received during

the next nine months.

Bequests

Incidentally, we hope ACLU _

members will consider providing

for the branch in their wills. Be-

quests should be made to the

American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California, Inc.,

with headquarters in San Fran-

cisco.

Loyalty Oath

Finished

The Government has decided

to accept a November 14 decision

by a Federal Court in Los An-

geles that the loyalty provisions

in the Medicare Act are uncon-

stitutional. The decision was

made in an announcement by So-

licitor General Thurgood Mar-_

shall to the U.S. Supreme Court

last month,

4

Favorable

Decision in

Mack Cases

Continued from Page 1-

taken place in the loyalty oath

field by virtue of several United

States Supreme Court decisions

decided after the Pockman case

resting on issues not mentioned

in the Pockman case. Judge Ka-

resh referred to three decisions

voiding loyalty oaths in Arizona,

Washington and Florida, and

stated, "These decisions have

changed the fundamental law in

ways never considered by the

court in Pockman y. Leonard and

therefore the constitutional issue

is not foreclosed in this state."

Grave Doubts

Judge Karesh then went on to

state: "On this state of the rec-

ord, the court finds no necessity

to reach the constitutional issue

raised by petitioners. However,

the recent decisions of the United

States Supreme Court, referred

have raised grave

doubts in the mind of this court

as to whether the second para-

graph of the oath of office re-

quired of all governmental offi-

cials in California is constitu-

tional." The second paragraph

referred to by Judge Karesh is

the portion of the oath requiring

disclosure of association with or-

ganizations advocating violent

overthrow of the government and

requiring government employees

to swear that they will not be-

come members of such organiza-

tions during the time that they

are government employees. This

portion of the oath is subject to

constitutional attack because it.

prescribes mere membership

without taking into account the |

individual actions or attitudes of

the person who belongs. It is well

known that a person may belong

to an organization without nec-

essarily agreeing with the pur-

poses of that organization.

What Group Is Subversive?

Another difficulty with the

California oath is its require-

ment that the person taking it

guess at what organizations will

be thought of by some other per-

sons to advocate illegal conduct;

if the guess is wrong the oath-

taker may be committing per-

jury. For example, in many parts

of the country certain civil rights

organizations are thought of as

advocating violent overthrow of

the government because they

disagree with segregationist poli-

cies of the existing government.

Should membership in these or-

ganizations be disclosed? In some

quarters certain groups strongly

opposing the American involve-

ment in Vietnam are thought of

as giving aid and comfort to the

enemies of America, Is member-

ship in these groups to be dis-

closed in the Levering Act oath?

The ambiguity of the oath in-

hibits free membership in po- .

litical organizations.

Assuming Disloyalty

It is most probable that when

an appropriate case comes along

the Levering Act oath in Cali-

fornia will be declared uncon-

stitutional and we will be free

of a legacy of the McCarthy pe-

riod which is an embarrassing

insult for those who feel that

loyalty to a government comes

from its deeds and cannot be

obtained by forced rituals. The

present oath assumes disloyalty

unless persons are `willing to

swear to the contrary. _

Appeal Unlikely

The State Board of Education

could still appeal Judge Karesh's

decision but, since it was basi-

cally a factual decision and not

a legal decision, it is doubtful

that they will do so. This will

mean that the Macks can go back

to teaching if they choose to do

so and if they can find a position.

Since the Macks were not teach-

ing at the time their credentials

were revoked, there is no back

salary at stake in the case. Both

Mr. and Mrs. Mack now reside in

Southern California.

5-4 Decision

IS (c)

Loyalty

" Schools

The U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional last

month several New York laws designed to keep subversives

off the faculties and staffs of public schools and state col-

leges. Among the affected provisions was the requirement

that public school and college teachers sign a certificate

Saying they were not Com-

munists, a provision that mem-

bers of the Communist party

could not be employed in the edu-

cational system and a require-

ment that teachers must be re-

moved for "the utterance on any

treasonable or seditious words."

The Vote

The vote was 5 to 4. The.

majority opinion by Justice Wil-

liam J. Brennan, Jr. was con-

curred in by Chief Justice Earl

Warren and Justices Black,

Douglas and Fortas. Tom Clark's

dissent was joined in by Justices

Harlan, Stewart and White.

"There can be no doubt of the

legitimacy of New York's inter-

est in. protecting its education

`system from subversion," said

the court. "But `even though the

- governmental purpose be legiti-

mate and substantial, that pur-

pose cannot be pursued by

means that broadly stifle funda-

mental personal liberties when

the end can be more narrowly

achieved.'

Pall of Orthodoxy

"Our nation is deeply com-

mitted to safeguarding academic

freedom, which is of transcend-.

ent value to all of us and not

merely to the teachers. con-

cerned. That freedom is there-

fore a special concern of the

First Amendment, which does

not tolerate laws that cast a pall

of orthodoxy over the. class- _

room." ~~

Removal of teachers for

`"treasonable or seditious" utter-

ances or acts was found to be

unconstitutionally vague. "The

erucial consideration," said the

court, "is that no teacher can

know just where the line is

drawn between `sedition' and

non-seditious utterances and

acts."

Defeat of Vagueness

The court also decided that

the Same defect of vagueness

affected the law which bars

employment of any person who

"by word of mouth or writing

willfully and deliberately advo-

cates, advises or teaches the

doctrine" of forceful overthrow

of government. "This provision,"

said the court, `is plainly sus-

ceptible to sweeping and im-

proper application. It may well

prohibit the employment of one

who merely advocates the doc-

trine in the abstract without any

attempt to indoctrinate others

or incite others to action in

furtherance of unlawful aims.

"And `in prohibiting advising'

the `doctrine' of unlawful over-

throw, does the statute prohibit

mere `advising' of the existence

of the doctrine, or advising an-

other to support the doctrine?

Since `advocacy' of the doctrine

of forceful overthrow is separ-

ately prohibited, need the per-

son `teaching' or `advising' this

doctrine himself `advocate' it?

Does the teacher who informs

his class about the precepts of

Marxism or the Declaration of

Independence violate' this pro-

hibition?" The same defect. of

vagueness was found in a section

of the law requiring disqualifica-

tion of an employee involved

with the distribution of written

material `containing or advo-

cating, advising or teaching the

doctrine" of forceful overthrow,"

etc.

Specific Intent (c)

With respect to the Feinberg

Law which makes Communist

party membership, as such,

prima facie evidence of disqual-

`ification, and the provision bar-

ring employment to members

of listed organization, the court

noted that constitutional doc-

trine had developed in recent

years. "Mere knowing member-

ship without a specific intent to

further the unlawful aims of an

organization is not a constitu

tionally adequate basis for exclu-

sion from such positions as those

held by appellants. 2

ACLU Subject aE

Berk. Humanist

Society Meeting

The Humanist Society of

Berkeley will conduct an Open

Forum: Next to the War in Viet

Nam, What Social Issue Will Be

of Greatest Concern to Human-

ists in 1967? The discussion will

be held on Sunday, February 26,

at 2 p.m. in the studio of Charles

H. Adams, 2833 Webster Street,

' Berkeley. One of the listed panel

of speakers is Hilger Walker

who will speak on Civil Liberties

and the ACLU.

A free-will offering will be

taken up at this meeting for the

work of the ACLU of Northern

California. Anyone interested in

discussing the topic or in com-

menting. on the presentation of

others is welcome, Mere auditors

are not encouraged.

The first right of a citizen

Is the right

To be responsible -

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION ~

OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Patron Membership 2.3... te. ss 2 it

Sustaining Membership

JOIN TODAY

goes 151

$100

Business and Professional Membership .........%..+. 29

Family Membership

Associate Membership ...... fs. i. 0 ew eee ees eee AO

Annual Membership. 4.45.3 cee ea a ee 8

Student Membership

oeeees eee eeoevexree ee ee eee eo oO 6 a3

ACLU News Subscription eeeeeteteaeeese sees s "$2.00

NAM E.

eee eS SC SHHSHHHHSSHOHHHHOSHHHSHOHOHHSTEOHHSHSHHHHOHHELHKRHHEHEHS

ADDRESS @ IPSCODE ns

TELEPHONE NUMBER......200ee200%

eooeoev eee oe 38

AMT. ENCLOSED.

eeoereceee

503 Market aes

San Francisco, 94105