vol. 34, no. 6

American

Civil Liberties

Union

Volume XXXIV

SAN FRANCISCO, JUNE, 1969

No. 6

Selective Service Act

Validity of

Draft Law To

Be Challenged

The American Civil Liberties Union announced on May

1 a head-on challenge of the present draft law, asserting

that the Selective Service Act itself is unconstitutional. The

new Union policy urges 47 state affiliates and cooperating

attorneys to initiate court tests

the draft.

The ACLU action springs from

recent policy decisions of the

National Board of Directors. One

of the several Board resolutions

states:

"The present Selective Serv-

ice law as presently adminis-

tered and in present circum-

stances is a violation of civil

liberties and constitutional

guarantees, and the ACLU

should act to oppose the pres-

ent draft law in judicial, legis-

lative and public forums."

Policy Explained

ACLU policy and program

relative to Selective Service was

explained by John de J. Pember-

ton, Jr., national Executive Di-

rector, who traced the civil lib-

erties implications of the draft.

"Military conscription is a se-

vere infringement of individual

liberties, at best the resort of a

nation facing imminent threat.

It must rest upon the interests

of national security, what James

Madison called, `the impulse of

self-preservation,' said Pember-

ton.

Habit of Mind

_ `We believe that government

has the duty to prove to the pub-

lie that so drastic a step as con-

scription has become a habit of

mind for the nation, winning a

lazy acceptance from adults be-

yond its reach, but creating

havoc and hostility from young

men whose lives it disrupts and

too often takes. It is shameful

for a free nation to continue for

thirty years a form of involun-

tary servitude without regular

and conclusive showings of its

necessity," he continued.

Earlier ACLU appraisals of the

draft have challenged the gov-

ernment to accept the burden of

proof and have invited wide pub-

lie debate on the conscription

Establishment of

S.F. Chapter

Under Study

It has been proposed that a

Chapter or Chapters be estab-

lished in the city of San Fran-

cisco to enable members in San

Francisco to function more ac-

tively in ACLU affairs, as do

members in other Chapter ar-

eas. Such a potential Chapter

might hold monthly meetings

and perform such duties as

watchdogging, educating the pub-

lic and themselves, fund raising,

increasing membership, fact

finding, etc.

A committee has been estab-

lished to study the feasibility of

establishing such a Chapter.

This Committee would be in-

terested in knowing how many

San Franciscans would be in-

terested in taking an active role

in establishing and/or maintain-

ing a San Francisco Chapter. If:

you have such an interest, please -

drop a note to Miss Carol Wein- |

traub, Chapter Director, ACLU,

503 Market Street, San Francisco

94105.

of law,"

of the cous inenality of

issue. The new policy determina-

tions of the ACLU Board make

clear that in the view of the

Union, proof is lacking to justify

the contraventions of due process

and the infringements of indi-

vidual rights which characterize

the present Selective Service

system.

Challenge on All Fronts

The ACLU will press its at-

tack on the draft through forty-

seven state affiliates, several

hundred chapters and nearly a

thousand staff and volunteer at-

torneys throughout the nation.

In addition to court tests, the

Union will work toward elimina-

tion of the draft by Congress

and increase its public education

efforts in this area.

ACLU opposition to the draft

as a whole will not diminish its_

challenge of gress inequities

within the Selection Service Sys-

tem itself. Even now, a count

of ACLU cases runs heavily to

those which seek to protect the

rights of servicemen and

draftees. New ACLU policy de-

terminations are expected to in-

crease this number.

Due Process Questions

Other new policy decisions

criticize due process violations in

the present Selective Service

System. The ACLU will press

for amendments in the law to

permit a registrant to have a

civil review in federal district

courts challenging denial by a

draft board of conscientious ob-

jector or other status requested

by him. In such eases of civil

review, the ACLU contends that

provision should be made for as-

signment of legal counsel where

indigence prevents the retention

of a paid attorney.

- The Union argues further that

legal counsel should be available

from the point at which a man

must register for the draft; and

that local boards should be re-

quired to make transcripts of all

meetings and procedures and in-

clude findings in their minutes

of the material facts in each

case. Current loose procedures

lack these safeguards.

Draft Board Members

"In addition to these problems

said' Mr. Pemberton,

"draft board members are ap-

pointed from a very narrow sec-

tion of the population, often on

a political basis which favors

members of veterans organiza-

tions, men with war experience.

in another time quite distinct

from the present. We urge most

strenuously that local board

members be chosen so as to

more truly represent the con-

temporary communities they

serve by criteria such as age,

sex, occupation and previous

military or alternative service.

Further, ACLU urges that a cer-

tain-minimum training in Selec-

tive Service law be provided for

draft board members."

In addition to these new policy

decisions the ACLU has long ob-

jected to due process violations

-Continued on Page 4

Plan Oakland

Ghetto

Project

The Board of Directors of

ACLUNC has authorized a pilot

"Ghetto Project" "to bring to

the ghetto community a greater

awareness of civil liberties and

of the use of legal procedures to

remedy their abuse."

The project would cost about

$75,000 and fund-raising appeals

are now being made to various

foundations. The fund-raising is

under the direction of board -

member John Rutherford. Board

_Mmembers have already given or

. pledged $5625 to get the project

going.

Project Function

The function of the project is

"First, to acquaint ghetto resi-

dents with their legal rights.

Second, to identify the abuses

of civil liberties which occur in

the ghettos. Third, to educate of-

ficials through legal sanctions to

respect the constitutional rights

of citizens."

Advisory Committee

Under the plan, the project di-

rector would work with an Ad-

visory Committee appointed by

the Board Chairman consisting

of five members of ACLUNC.

Two members would be ACL-

UNC board members and at least

two members would represent

racially and economically the

project area. The function of

the committee is to work with

project director in recommend-

ing policy guidelines for project

operation. The ACLUNC Board

of Directors will have the wlti.

mate responsibility for all policy

decisions to initiate or partici-

pate in litigation. The Execu-

tive Director of ACLUNC will

have the day-to-day responsibil-

ity for supervision of the proj-

ect director.

No `Justice for All"

what happened at Santa Rita,

Reagan's responsibility,

The `People's Park' Issue

Of course, the "People's Park" issue as such is not one for

_the ACLU. There is no civil right for a group of citizens to

take over University or any other property. And, we don't

support bombarding police with all kinds of missiles, stabbing

a policeman, breaking windows, setting fire to cars, blocking

traffic, etc. The police have a duty to maintain the peace.

But there is no justification for lawless enforcement of the

law. The police have no right to mete out punishment. The

killing of one man, the partial blinding of another and the

wounding of many others with buckshot is plain vicious. The

tear gas attack on countless citizens going about their normal

_ business by a helicopter flying low over the Berkeley campus

is senseless and frightening, The indiscriminate arrest of many

innocent people may have been accomplished with great effi-

ciency but it violated the rights of many law-abiding people

who were trapped by the police and soldiers and who were

given no way to disperse, The shocking mistreatment of pris-

oners at the Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center is barbaric and

an imposition on a mass basis of the cruel punishment that has

reportedly in the past been imposed on an individual basis,

Responsibility for the conduct of the police must rest with

`Sheriff Frank Madigan who was in charge of the entire peace-

keeping force. And, of course, he has full responsibility for

The denial of basic civil rights under a proclamation that

imposed a 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew in all of Berkeley and for-

bade all public meetings in Berkeley is Governor Ronald

Together, the Sheriff and the Governor are responsible

for violating civil liberties on a wholesale scale. The courts

can give some relief against this assault upon our liberties but

in the last analysis it is we, the people, who must see to it

that our society is not run by persons who rely on the ruth-

less use of the club and the bayonet but by persons who re-

spect basic American liberties.-E.B.

Governor's Proclamation

Challenge

Ban on Berkeley

Assemblies _

For the second time in a year public assemblies have

been banned in Berkeley; for the second time in a year .

ACULUNC hes challenged the ban; for the second time in a

year the ban has been lifted on the day before a scheduled

federal court hearing on its constitutionality. One would

think that those who insist that

peaceable assembly is incompat-

ible with `order' are reluctant

to defend their theory before the

federal court.

Five S.F. Intern Teachers

Refuse to Salute Flag

The ACLU intervened last month on behalf of five intern

teachers at Bret Harte School in Hunters Point who refused

to salute the American flag. During the flag ceremony in

the school yard every morning the teachers stand at atten-

tion. They have informed school officials that as a matter of

conscience they will not join in

the. Pledge of Allegiance. Their

objection is to the phrase "just-

ice for all" -which appears in

the pledge. The teachers believe

that black people have been de-

nied justice and,-therefore, they

cannot in good conscience assert

that there is justice for all in

this country.

Student Teachers

Supt. Robert E. Jenkins is

quoted as saying that he "ex-

pects employees of the district

to respect the laws and salute

the flag." The five are not un-

der direct contract to the dis-

trict but are paid out of federal

funds administered by the dis-

trict out of the Teachers Corps

program. They are paid $75 a

week while working on master's

degrees in teaching at San Fran-

cisco State College.

In a letter to Mr. Jenkins,

the ACLU declared "there is no

law compelling teachers to salute

the flag if in so doing they

would violate their consciences."

High Court Ruling

The ACLU called attention to

the ruling of the U. S. Supreme

Court in West Virginia vs. Bar-

nette in which it was held that

pupils refusing to salute the flag

could not be required publicly

to affirm a belief. "If there is

any fixed star in our .constitu-

tion said Mr. Justice Jackson in

the prevailing opinion, "it is that

no official, high or petty can pre-

scribe what shall be orthodox in

politics, nationalism, religion, or

other matters of opinion or force

citizens to confess by word or

act their faith therein... We

think the action of the local au-

thorities 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 Con-

stitution to reserve from all offi-

cial control."

No Surrender of Rights

In its letter to Mr. Jenkins,

the ACLU declared "It would be

strange indeed if the consciences

of students had to be respected

while those of teachers could be

violated, We believe that no

teacher as a condition of em.

ployment can be required to

surrender his constitutional

rights and we will be happy, if

necessary, to defend that posi-

tion in the courts.'

The matter has been referred

to the school district's lega] ad-

visor, Irving G, Breyer, for an

opinion. The ACLU has asked -

to be kept advised.

State of. Emergency

After disturbances last Labor

Day week end, Berkeley was

placed under a "state of emer-

gency;" the City Manager pro-

- mulgated regulations making all

public meetings in public places

throughout Berkeley illega] and

making it illegal to "loiter" in

Berkeley from 8:00 p.m, to 6:00

a.m,

On May 15 Governor Reagan,

acting pursuant to a "state of

emergency" proclaimed Febru-

ary 5 during a strike at the Uni-

versity and never lifted, promul-

gated an almost identical set of

regulations in response to a new

disorder. The only difference be-

tween the two regulations is that

the Governor banned "loitering"

between 10:00 p.m, and 6:00

a.m., thus giving the citizens of

Berkeley two more daylight sav-

ing time hours of lawful loiter-

ing.

Origin of Trouble

The new disturbance occurred

after Chancellor Heyns had a

fence constructed around Uni-

versity property upon which

south campus residents had con-

structed a park. The lot had been

vacant for a year but the Univer-

sity has plans for its future and

the fence was constructed, ac-

cording to Heyns, "because of

the conveniently forgotten fact"

that the University owns the

property. If anyone had forgot-

ten who held title their recollec-

tion has surely been refreshed;

the whole world now knows that

the University owns the prop-

erty, :

Worst Disturbances

The disturbances following the

erection of the fence were the

worst to occur in a community

that has had an inordinate

amount of civil disturbance in

recent years. For the first time.

at Berkeley police used firearms

on demonstrators. One is dead,

another is partia'ly blinded,

-Continued on Page 4

ACLU Supports

`Objector To A

Particular War

American Civil Liberties attorneys appeared on May 21

before the U. S. Military Court of Appeals on behalf of

Capt. Dale E. Noyd, the first man to make a court claim

of conscientious objection to a particular war. The merits

of his case, begun in military courts over a year ago, were

heard for the first time.

The underlying question to be

resolved is whether a serviceman

ean be disqualified from con-

scientious objector status be-

cause he distinguishes between

a just war and an unjust war

in applying for an exemption.

Sincerity Not Questioned

Despite the fact that at no

time has his sincerity of belief

(as defined in the Seeger case)

been questioned in any court,

Capt. Noyd has been in con-

finement while his appeals were

pending and was released only

two days before his original sen-

tence would have been complet-

ed.

Federal civil courts refused

jurisdiction of Capt. Noyd's case

on the grounds that appeals

should first go through the mili-

tary courts, and the military

courts then refused jurisdiction

to determine whether or not the

conscientious objection applica-

tion had been denied in error.

Since his principal defense was

based on his contention that he

had been wrongfully denied C.O.

status and that up until the pres-

ent, both civil and military

eourts have refused to rule on

the question, Capt. Noyd has

been confined without a hearing

on the merits of his case.

The Facts

The events leading up to this

trial are as follows:

After 11 years as a regular

commissioned officer in the U.

S. Air Force, Capt. Noyd applied

for release as a conscientious ob-

jector or for an assignment not

inconsistent with his _ beliefs.

Both applications were denied

and he was ordered instead to

Cannon Air Force base to train

combat pilots for Vietnam.

When the first application was

denied, he turned to the federal

civil courts which refused juris-

diction until -all possible reme-

dies through the military courts

had been completed. The Fed-

eral District Court thus held

(and the U. S. Court of Appeals

affirmed) that Capt. Noyd must

first be charged with a crime

_ (wilful disobedience) and _ be

court-martialed before he could

obtain review of the alleged

wrongful denial of his C. O. ap-

plication. Only after exhaustion

of the military appellate process,

according to this holding, might

he then return to the federal

civil courts to seek review of

the constitutionality of the ac-

tion taken on his applications.

The U. S. Supreme Court denied

certiorari.

One-Year Sentence |

Capt. Noyd then began his

long journey through the mili-

tary courts. He refused to train

pilots for Vietnam and on March

9, 1968, was convicted by court-

martial of refusal to obey an

order. He was sentenced to one

year at hard labor, dismissal

from the service, and forfeiture

of all pay and allowances.

In May, the Air Force or-

dered Capt. Noyd's imprisonment

at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas. He

appealed to the federal district

court which held that such ac-

tion would, in effect, be execu-

tion of sentence before appeals

had been completed. It refused,

however, to prohibit any other

form of. restraint the Air Force

might deem necessary. The

ACLU warned that if Capt. Noyd

were imprisoned in any way,

he might be forced to serve his

ACLU NEWS

JUNE, 1969

Page 2

sentence before his final appeals

had been heard, which would be

particularly unjust since at no

time had any court ruled on the

merits of his case. The U. S.

Court of Appeals this time re-

versed the bar on transporta-

tion to Leavenworth and the U.

S. Supreme Court granted review

of this decision.

High Court Argument

On April 24, 1969, his appeal

was argued before the U. S.

Supreme Court. The points ar-

gued were that the Court of

Appeals should not have denied

jurisdiction of his case; that his

confinement at Cannon Air

Force Base pending his appeals

violated the Uniform Code of

Military Justice; and that Capt.

Noyd had been deprived of hi9

liberty without due process of

law in that he had been tried,

convicted, sentenced and ordered

into confinement prior to any

hearings on the meus of his

case.

' Issues Before Military Court

Meanwhile, the argument be-

fore the Court of Military Ap-

peals asked the court to pass for

the first time on the merits of

the case. The issues before CO-

MA are:

(1) If the military courts do

lack jurisdiction to review the

legality of denying Noyd's C. O.

application,. Although its legali-

ty was an essential element. of

Noyd's court-martial conviction

for wilful disobedience, the

court-martial and the Air Force

Board of Review on appeal, held

that they had no jurisdiction to -

review the legality of denial.

COMA is asked to reverse this

holding. (2) If Capt. Noyd's oth-

erwise impeccable application

_for separation or reassignment

as a C. O. may be turned down

by the Air Force on the sole

ground that his conscience dis-

tinguishes between a just war

and an unjust war. No court,

either civil or military, has yet

passed on this question. COMA -

is asked to rule: that Noyd's ap-

plication may be turned down

on these grounds only.

ACLU Counsel

Appearing as counsel for Capt.

Noyd in the present proceedings,

as they have for all prior pro-

ceedings, were ACLU cooperat-

ing attorney Marvin M. Karpat-

kin and ACLU Executive Direc-

tor, John de J. Pemberton, Jr.

Case Dismissed

Against Two

Pamphieteers

Martha Frank and Jean

Loomis were arrested for pass-

ing out pamphlets near a high

school. The pamphlets urged

high school students to support

the student strike at San Fran-

cisco State. The law that the

ladies allegedly violated pro-

hibits one from remaining in an

area adjacent to a school, after

being asked to leave by a school

administrator, if one's presence

in the area is not pursuant to a

lawful purpose.

The pamphieteers' attorneys,

Jerome B. Falk, Jr., and Paul

Halvonik, argued that pamphlet-

ing was a lawful purpose, a pur-

pose, indeed, protected by the

First Amendment to the United

States Constitution. The Munici-

pal Court judge who was to try

the case appeared to agree with

that view and the District Attor-

ney decided to dismiss the case.

Teachers' Oath

Dropped by

Max Rafferty

Mary Barrett, a San Francis-

can applying for a teaching cre-

dential, complained to the

American Civil Liberties Union

that she was asked, as a condi-

tion to receiving her credential,

to execute the following oath:

"T solemnly affirm/swear

that I will support the Con-

stitution of the State of Cali-

fornia, and the laws of the

United States and the State

of California and will, by

precept and example, pro-

mote respect for the Flag

and the statutes of the

United States and of the

State of California, rever-

ence for law and order, and

undivided allegiance to the

Government of the United

States of America."

Court Decision

In 1968 a Superior Court judge

in Los Angeles held the very

same oath unconstitutional as a

violation of the First and Four-

teenth Amendments. The De-

partment of Education declined

to appeal that opinion and indi-

cated at the time that it would

no longer require applicants to

sign the oath. But the promise

was never honored and Miss

Barrett's case was one of a

number which had come to

ACLUNC's attention during the

past year.

Letter to State

Staff Counsel Paul Halvonik

wrote to the Department of Edu-

cation on Miss Barrett's behalf

demanding that the oath require-

ment be dropped from the teach-

ers' application. The letter stat-

ed: "If it is your plan to evade

the Constitution by forcing us to

bring actions in al] fifty-eight

counties and then refusing to ap-

peal adverse decisions I think

you should know that I do not

intend to "sue in the~ Superior

Court; I shall seek a Federal

Court Injunction."

Press Release

In response to Halvonik's let-

ter Max Rafferty, Superintend-

ent of Public Instruction and Di-

rector of Education, issued a

press release announcing that he

was reluctantly eliminating the

oath from teachers' applications

and that all applications upon

which the oath appears would be

stamped "OATH INVALID AND

NEED NOT BE SIGNED." True

to his word. Miss Barrett has

now received an application with

the oath so marked and the De-

partment of Education, on. April'

30, directed a memorandum to

all persons distributing creden-

tial application forms stating

`that whatever process you use to

modify existing application

forms should clearly indicate

that the oath is invalid and that

it need not be signed."

ACLUNC Takes

Leafletting

Case in Biggs

Members -of the Resistance in

Chico had organized a _ peace

march and were distributing

leaflets announcing it throughout

Butte County. One of them,

Thomas Wallace, was arrested in

the City of Biggs under a 1934

ordinance that provides that "No

person shall throw, distribute

(or) drop" leaflets or handbills

in a public place. Wallace was

arrested for passing out leaflets

hand-to-hand on a2 public side-

walk.

ACLUNC is representing Wal-

lace and has demurred to the

complaint against him, charging

that the ordinance unconstitu-

tionally infringes upon the rights

of speech and press guaranteed

by the First Amendment, Obvi-

ously, Biggs' 1934 ordinance has

not caught up with pronounce-

ments of the U.S, Supreme

Court in various leaflet cases in

the early forties.

Outside Agitators

ACLU Opposes

Federal Anti-

Riot Law

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union ap-

peared in the United States District Court in Chicago last

month claiming that eight defendants charged under the

federal anti-riot bill have a constitutional right to be "out-

side agitators."

The ACLU amicus brief notes

for the court that freedom to

travel] and freedom to speak out

are specifically protected by law

-and must not suffer restric-

tions even during frantic periods

of social unrest. The brief cites

a recent ruling of the United

States Supreme Court in Shapiro

v. Thompson which invalidates

state laws imposing a residency

requirement for welfare appli-

cants, and quotes the language

of the Court in Terminiello v.

Chicago which describes the tol-

erance which law extends to

speech: -

"A function of free speech

under our system of govern-

ment is to invite dispute. It

-may indeed best serve its

high purpose when it induc-

es a condition of unrest, cre-.

ates dissatisfaction with con-

ditions as they are, or even

stirs people to anger."

Therefore, since there is a

constitutional right to travel in

interstate commerce and a con-

stitutional right to engage in agi-

tation, it is possible to speak of

the constitutional right to be an

"outside agitator." This being so,

. Congress may not constitution-

ally prohibit "outside agitators"

from crossing state lines. Nor

may it enact legislation having

the same effect under the guise

that. it is weet laHe: against | Vie...

lence:"

Chicago case are: David T. Del-

linger, Rennard C. Davis, Thom-

s E, Hayden, Abbott H. Hoff-

The eight defeiidants in `the

man, Jerry C. Rubin, Lee Wein-

er, John R. Froines and Bobby

G. Seale, Defendants are repre-

sented by direct counsel, the

ACLU brief addressing itself

to their rights of free speech and

travel.

The ACLU asserts that the

present statute while in theory is

directed against "hard core riot-

ers," in reality, it will operate to

inhibit all "outside agitators"

from crossing state lines in order

to exercise First Amendment

rights. The statute is replete with

terms such as "incite" ("every

idea is an incitement," Holmes,

J., dissenting in Gitlow v New

York, 268 U.S. 652,673 (1925) ),

"promote," "encourage," "urg-

ing," "assertion." Its gist is the

state of mind of the defendant.

"A "conviction can be sustained

even if no riot or violence ever

occurs, Congress has gone about

its goal of punishing the "hard

core rioter" (if that was its goal)

in a "blunderbuss fashion."

Thereby creating an unreason-

able and unconstitutional burden

on those who desire to cross

state lines for the purpose of

exercising first amendment

rights.

The brief recalls to the court

that a much preferred statute

was submitted to the Congress

by the Attorney General on be-

. half of the President: Itswassise:

nored, and the present law was

enacted. The proposed statute

would have punished any person

-Continued on Page 4

Mrs. La Verda O. Allen - (c)...

Alfred J. Azevedo

Albert M. Bendich

Leo Borregard

Rey. Hamilton Boswell

Price M. Cobbs, M.D.

Prof. John Edwards

Jerome B. Falk, Jr. -

Prof. Marc Franklin

Robert Greensfelder

Rev. Aron S. Gilmartin

Evelio Grillo

Francis Heisler

Neil F. Horton

Daniel N. Loeb

Gerald D. Marcus

_ Ephraim Margolin

Dr. John N. Marquis

Honorary Treasurer:

Joseph $. 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

H. H. Fisher

Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California

CHAIRMAN: Howard H. Jewel

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Prof. Van D. Kennedy

Helen Salz

SEC'Y-TREAS.: Howard A. Friedman

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Ernest Besig

GENERAL COUNSEL: Wayne M. Collins

STAFF COUNSEL: Paul N. Halvonik

ASS'T STAFF COUNSEL and LEGIS. REP.: Charles C. Marson

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: Mrs. Pamela S. Ford

CHAPTER DIRECTOR: Carol R. Weintraub

Committee of Sponsors

Mrs. Paul Holmer

Mrs. Mary Hutchinson Prof. Wallace Stegner

; Prof. Wilson Record

Prof. Ernest Hilgard Dr. Norman Reider

_ John R. May :

Richard Lk. `Mayers (c) 0x00B00x00B0

Martin Mills, M.D.

Robert L. Nolan, M.D.

Richard Patsey

Mrs. Esther Pike

Henry J. Rodriquez

Eugene N. Rosenberg

Mrs. Muriel Roy

John Brisbin Rutherford

Prof. John Searle

Warren H. Saltzman

Mrs. Alec Skolnick

Stanley D. Stevens

Jerry Tucker

Justin Vanderlaan

Don Vial

Joe J. Yasaki

Dr. Marvin J. Naman

Mrs. Theodosia Stewart

Rt. Rev. Sumner Walters -

Richard Johnston

Roger Kent

Mrs. Ruth Kingman

Prof. Theodore Kreps

Seaton W. Manning

Rey. Robert W. Moon

Clarence E. Rust

Prof. Hubert Phillips

Norman Lezin

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

Subcription Rates --- Two Dollars and Fifty Cents a Year

Twenty-Five Cents Per Copy

" 151

w

The Barbarity in

" Santa Rita Jail

Chronicle reporter Tim Findley, who revealed the barbarity and

indignity inflicted at Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center after Thurs-

day's mass Berkeley arrests, has now had his report repeatedly cor-

roborated by dozens upon dozens of complaints to the Berkeley-

Albany office of the American Civil Liberties Union.

The stories follow a frightening repeated pattern. Many of those

arrested were in the Berkeley downtown section going about their

business, making travel arrangements, paying their rent, shopping.

Attempting to leave by any of several streets, they found cordons

of police or National Guardsmen, Trapped, they were charged with

failure to disperse. At Santa Rita, prisoners describe repeated beat-

ings and tell of clubbings administered for not calling deputies sir

or for the crime of turning their eyes.

Ap epileptic says he was thrown head first into a wall for asking

for his medicine. Prisoners repeatedly tell of papers in their pos-

session being destroyed. Some deputies obviously believed that their

function was to inflict punishment and not to detain. _

The entire disgraceful affair is too remindful of Cossack and

SS conduct earlier and elsewhere. It cannot be tolerated. And it

must be fully investigated by the Federal authorities, independent

of the local law enforcement agencies to insure an impartial deter-

mination of responsibility and administration of reproofs and dis-

ciplinary measures that are to be anticipated.-Editorial, San Fran-

cisco Chronicle, May 27, 1969.

Federal Court of Appeal

Berk. Viet Na

Commencement

Last year, the Campus Draft Opposition of the Univer-

sity of California's Berkeley campus requested use of the

Greek Theatre for the purpose of holding an assembly to

be entitled "Viet Nam Commencement" where young men

who had taken the position that they could not morally

participate in the armed forces

during the Viet Nam conflict

would be honored, CDO was de-

nied use of the Greek Theatre

on. the -grounds: `that: their.-pro--

posed purpose was an unlawful

one because it would violate a

federal law making it a crime to

"counsel, aid, or abet another to

refuse or evade registration or

service in the armed forces...."

Contentions

Marshall Krause, then staff

counsel, brought a federal rights

action on behalf of CDO request-

ing an order requiring the Uni-

versity to make the Greek The-

atre available for the commence-

ment, The temporary restraining

order was denied:.and the .CDO

complaint was amended to al-

lege: (1) that the University

would persist in its policy of

denying the exercise of First

Amendment rights to persons

honoring conscientious objectors

to the Selective Service System,

(2) that the University regula-

tion prohibiting the use of Uni-

versity facilities for "carrying

out unlawful activity" is an un-

lawful prior restraint on the ex-

ercise of First Amendment

rights and (3) that the federal

faw prohibiting counseling of

evasion of registration or service

in the armed forces is a viola-

_ tion of the First Amendment.

Three-Judge Court Sought

A federal statute requires that

a three-judge court be convened

to pass on the constitutionality

of federal statutes and state ad-

ministrative rules of general ap-

plication, Accordingly, the

amended complaint also request-

ed the convening of a three-

judge court.

Last fall Federal District

Judge Lloyd Burke denied the

request to convene a_ three-

judge court and dismissed the

case. ACLUNC has appealed

Judge Burke's ruling and its

brief, prepared by Staff Counsel

Paul Halvonik, has now been

filed in the United States Court

of Appeals.

Beyond Jurisdiction

The brief maintains that

Judge Burke acted beyond his

jurisdiction in dismissing the

_ case because only a three-judge

court is.empowered to dismiss

such a caSe unless it is clearly

"frivolous." The brief points out

that the Complaint is not frivol-:

ous because any prior restraint, -

that is any regulation which pro-

hibits one from assembling be-

cause something illegal might oc-

.cur, is presumed unconstitutional

and because the Supreme Court

- of the United States has explic-

itly held that criticism of our

Viet Nam policy is protected ex-

pression guaranteed by the First -

Amendment to the United States

Constitution, Nor can it be said

that the challenge to the law

making it a crime to counsel

someone: to evade the. draft is

frivolous. ~~ f Bee

Federal Statute _

On its face the federal statute

appears to prohibit expression of

opinion even though the speech

falls short of incitement and

even though the speech would

not be acted upon.On its face the

federal law does not draw the

constitutionality line between

abstract advocacy and incite-

ment.

Since the constitution claims

are not clearly frivolous, the

brief concludes, the case should

be remanded to the Federal

District Court for further pro-

ceedings looking toward the con-

vening of a three-judge court.

New York City

Lifts Hiring Ban

On Homosexuals

United Press reported last

month that New York City's civ-

il service commission had lifted

the ban on the hiring of homo-

sexuals. The action was taken

in response to a court order

from Federal Judge William B.

Herlands. The case is without

precedent.

The decision sprang from a

suit filed by two men who had

been turned down for jobs as

welfare caseworkers on grounds

of alleged homosexuality. Both

denied they were homosexuals.

Investigation

Promised in

"Sedition' Case

The Manager of the Veterans

Home of California at Yountville,

Napa County, has promised "a

complete and thorough study of

all. of the circumstances sur-

rounding the trial by a "Mana-

ger's Court" of a resident who

was charged with having `en-

gaged in seditious talk or activi-

ties" and with having "made in-

flammatory, derogatory and lia-

ble (sic) statements in writing

with respect to an officer of the

Home." The veteran was found

"guilty" of the charges and he

was ordered discharged from the

Home but the "sentence" was

suspended on condition that he

"would never again engage in

the activities. prohibited by the

Home rule and state law."

The ACLU requested that it be

furnished with any copies of

charges served upon the veteran

prior to the convening of the

"Manager's Court" and with a

copy of the transcript of the -

hearing of that court held on

February 26, 1969. The request

was ignored. As far as the Union

can learn, however, no written

charges were ever served upon

the veteran and no record of the

proceedings was made. The

group would seem to have oper-

ated like a kangaroo court.

Dr. Gould has suggested that

a matter of this kind requires

"careful detailed study and

preparation." Dr. Gould failed

to indicate whether this would

be a matter of weeks, months or

years. The ACLU, however, will

press for action now since the

problem was presented to the

Manager more than a month ago.

Three-Year Wait

Uphold Air -

Force Uniform

Regulation

vides:

The United States Air Force has a regulation which pro-

Air Force members will not wear the uniform at any

public meeting, demonstration, or interview if they

have reason to know that a purpose of the meeting,

demonstration, or interview is

the advocacy, expression or

approval or opposition to the

employment or use of the

Armed Forces of the United

States."

Michael Locks was convicted,

by court-martial, of violating the

regulatien and is presently serv-

ing a year's confinement, Suit, to

declare the regulation unconsti-

tutional, was brought in the Fed-

eral Court on behalf of Locks

and on behalf of other airmen

who wish to participate in dem-

onstrations against the war in

Viet Nam.

Unconstitutional

The plaintiff's attorneys, Al-

bert Bendich and Richard Wert-

heimer, contended that the regu-

lation was manifestly unconsti-

tutional, directing the Court's at-

tention to the Supreme Court's

decision holding that students

could not be compelled to salute

the flag where that Court said:

"Tf there is any fixed star

in our constitutional constel-

lation it is that no official,

high or petty, can prescribe

what shall be orthodox in

politics, nationalism, religion

Swiss Citizen Granted

_D.D Security Clearance.

After a delay of more than three years a Swiss citizen

has just been granted a Department of Defense security

clearance at the secret level.

The original application was made March 9, 1966. A year

later, the employer, Lockheed Missiles and Space Company,

was informed the necessary in-

vestigation could not be com-

pleted. Three-months later he

was told that the "investigative

coverage required for the neces-

sary period of your life in Switz-

erland cannot be obtained."

_ Investigation Reopened

Later, when the ACLU inter-

vened, the investigation was. re-

opened but the ACLU was then

informed that the Department of

State had declared that the in-

vestigation could not be com-

pleted. Lawrence Speiser of the

ACLU in Washington, D.C. then

inquired about the case and was

informed about four "gaps" in

the investigation. The employee

supplied the -information and

also the declaration of the U.S.

Consul that the consulate could

verify employment and school

records.

Statement of Reasons

Two years after the original

application for a clearance was

filed, the employee received a

Statement of Reasons, denying

him his requested clearance on

grounds that he had "interests

and obligations of such a nature -

as to indicate that (he) might

serve the interests of another

government in preference to the

interests of the United States"

and that he "may be subjected

to influence .. ."

Basis for Charges

These conclusions were based

on his Swiss citizenship, his

stated unwillingness to bear arms

for the United States because of

his erroneous belief that the ac-

quiring of U.S, citizenship would

not divest him of his Swiss citi-

zenship and membership in the

Swiss Army Reserve, and his

statement that if he did become

a US. citizen he would not re-

nounce his Swiss citizenship. All

of these facts were known to the

Government at the time it was

declaring it could not complete

its investigation.

Employee's Answer

The employee's sworn written

answer explained that his unwil-

lingness to bear arms merely re-

flected what is provided for in a

treaty between the United States

and Switzerland, while the state-

ment that he would not renounce

his Swiss citizenship upon becom-

ing a US. citizen was based on

the erroneous assumption that

the United States allowed dual

citizenship.

S. F. Hearing

The employee was represented

at a hearing in San Francisco on

April 8, 1968 by Ernest Besig

and two months later an unfavor-

able ruling was made by the

hearing officer. The examiner

found that as a citizen of Switz-

erland the employee owed a pri-

mary allegiance to Switzerland

and that he was a member of the

Swiss Army reserve, currently

"on leave to a foreign country"

and paying a tax in lieu of active

service.

_At the hearing, he agreed that

if he received citizenship he

would renounce his Swiss citizen-

ship willingly and, in good faith,

live up to the obligations of U.S.

citizenship, including the bear-

ing of arms.

Appeal Taken

In an appeal to the Appeal

Board of the Industrial Security

Clearance Review Office, the em-

ployee was represented by Law-

rence Speiser ACLU legislative

representative and former staff

counsel in northern California.

The favorable ruling affects -

many other Swiss citizens whose

applications for security clear-

ance have been denied because

they are required to serve in the

Swiss Army reserve or to pay

an in lieu tax.

or other matters of opinion

or force citizens to confirm

by word or act their faith

therein."

ACLU Files Brief

ACLUNC staff counsel] Paul

Halvonik and Charles Marson,

supporting plaintiffs as friends

of the court, argued that if the

Air Force could prescribe polit-

ical orthodoxy it could adopt

regulations prohibiting the wear-

ing of the uniform to Democratic

conventions and that it could .

also prescribe religious ortho-

doxy and prohibit the wearing of

the uniform to "unapproved" re-

ligious services.

Court's Opinion

Federal District Court Judge

Alfonso J. Zirpoli, however, has

held the regulation constitu-

tional, stating that:

"A military uniform is a

symbol, and the issue in this

case is whether it may be

used in a context expressly

contrary to the purposes and

values intended by the Sec-

retary of the Air Force.

This court holds that if the

Secretary of the Air Force

commands that the uniform

not be worn at events of the

nature in question, the First

Amendment does not com-

mand otherwise. To permit

members of the military to

display at will the primary

symbol of their military

service would be to permit

the destruction of the very

symbolic effectiveness which

the uniform is intended to

enjoy. This court does not

find it violative of the First

Amendment for the Secre-

tary to limit the wearing of

the uniform to contexts that

will promote a sense not just

of membership in the Air

Force, but of participation,

allegiance, and achievement.

- The Air Force designs and

furnishes the uniform ac-

cording to its own criteria;

the First Amendment does

not forbid the Air Force

from determining the uni-

form's use according to its

own criteria.

x ek KOR

"To ensure against arbi-

trary action of the state, a

free society values robust,

vigorous and essentially un-

limited public speech and

discussion by citizens and

protects their right to do 30

-by peaceful demonstrations.

But when the purpose and

very objective of the demon-

stration is opposition to the

employment and use of the

Air Force in Southeast Asia

and when symbolie speech at

such demonstration by wear-

ing the uniform of the Air

Force will tend to destroy

military values through the

misuse of the most universal

and powerful symbol of

those values and thereby ad-

versely affect its efforts to

fulfill its primary purpose,

the employment and use of

its personnel in Southeast

Asia, a general order or reg-

ulation issued to avoid or

diminish the danger of such

consequences to the Air

Force is not only reasonable

but imperative."

Judge Zirpoli's decision will'

be appealed.

ACLU NEWS

JUNE, 1969

Page 3

Reshuffled Power

Legislature Hits

At Obscenity and

Campus Unrest

Defection, death, special elections and partisan struggles

- continued to make `this legislative session the most uncer-

tain in years, as the pace picked up considerably in late

April and early May.

Earlier this year, George Veneman (R-Modesto) vacated

his Assembly seat to become an

assistant to Robert Finch at

HEW in Washington. Early in

May Assemblyman Alan Pattee

(R-Monterey) died in an auto-

mobile accident. This cut the

Republicans' 41-39 margin in the

Assembly to an even 39-39. Rob-

ert Monagan remains as Speak-

er, of course, since it would take

41 votes to depose him, and the

committees he selected remain

as they were.

Special Elections

On May 20th, in a special elec-

tion for Veneman's seat, Repub-

lican Claude Berryhill defeated

Democrat Ernest La Coste by a

margin of 38 votes, thus giving

the Republicans a 40-39 edge. In

mid-July, the final election for

Pattee's seat will be heid. Fred

Farr, a Democrat popular in the

area, has announced his candi-

dacy. If he wins the Assembly

would be split 40-40 and the leg-

islative results would be highly

uncertain.

Burns' Reign Ends

In addition, the long reign of

senator Hugh Burns (D-Fresno)

as President Pro Tem of the

Senate ended last month, as a

coalition of Republicans and dis-

sident liberal Democrats put to-

gether exactly the 21 votes neces-

sary to replace Burns with How-

ard Way (R-Exeter). They did

not, however, have the votes to

unseat Burns' traditional friends

on the Rules Committee, so Way,

a moderate-to-conservative Re-

publican, finds himself chairing

a Rules Committee otherwise

composed of two Democrats and

two Republicans loyal to Burns.

The consequences of this remain

to be seen.

The constant reshuffling of

power did not prevent the Leg-

islature from acting on a great

number of bills, many of which

affect civil liberties.

Obscenity

Seven obscenity bills came to

the Assembly Criminal Proce-

dure Committee last month, Af-

ter extensive, popular and some-

times acrimonious hearings, five

died. Two, unfortunately, were

passed to the Assembly floor,

where they are virtually certain

of being adopted.

SB 62 and SB 63, which passed

the Senate in early March, deal

respectively with children and

adults. SB 62 will (1) permit

redeeming social] importance to

be measured in terms of import-

ance to minors; (2) permit pru-

rient interest to be measured in

terms of clearly defined deviant

sexual groups, if it appears that

material was designed for such

a group; and (3) permit evidence

of "pandering", - evidence that

material was being exploited

for the sake of its prurient in-

terest. In its original form, SB

62 also permitted prurient inter-~

est to be balanced off against

social importance, permitted the

measurement of prurient inter-

est in terms of children of dif-

ferent age groups (i.e., a picture

might be "obscene" for a child

of 12 but not for one of 15),

expanded the knowledge require-

ment to permit prosecution of

one who recklessly failed to ex-

ercise reasonable inspection of

the material he sold, permitted

evidence of "pandering" by some

one other than the defendant

(i.e, an advertiser), and added

penalties for children misrepre-

senting their age in order to

ACLU NEWS

JUNE, 1969

Page 4

purchase matter meant only for

adults. These, as well as similar

provisions in SB 63, were amend-

ed out of the final versions of

the bills.

As an aside on the political

climate in which there bills

were heard, the author of this

article appeared at a meeting

of a Committee of the San Fran-

cisco Board of Supervisors,

which eventually endorsed SB 62

and 63, to testify against them.

After testifying, he was ordered

by . Supervisor Blake, in that

gentleman's graceful and states-

manlike manner, to get out of

town. He is not inclined to leave.

Campus Unrest

After hundreds of hours of

testimony, argument, negotiation

and publicity, the Select Com-.

mittee on Campus Disturbances

has finally issued its report. Its

general conclusion is that pres-

ent laws are largely adequate

but need firmer enforcement.

Several new model laws are pro-

posed, however. One punishes

any student who (1) comes on

the campus after being suspend-

ed after a hearing and (2) be-

ing directed not to return. An-

other permits the "withdrawal

of consent" to be on campus

from anyone who is reasonably

believed to be intending to dis-

rupt the campus by illegal

means, or who has already done

so. (There are two-versions of

this model bill.) Hearings, writ-

ten reports, and a two-week max-

imum are provided. The option

of mandatory suspension or ex-

pulsion for disruptive students

was discarded in favor of dis-

cretion in the campus adminis-

tration, except that scholarships

and loans must be suspended.

Other changes were suggested.

Three Republicans dissented on

the ground that the report was

too mild; Willie Brown, Jr. (D-

San Francisco) refused to sign

it at all, but for the opposite

reasons.

Hearings will begin shortly on

all the hysterical legislation

which was introduced early in

the session but held up pending

this Report. Whether the legis-

lation will conform to the Re-

port is the one remaining ques-

tion. A hopeful sign was seen

on May 19th when four "tough"

bills which did not conform were

killed.

Miscellaneous Bills

Wiretapping-AB 253 is still

in limbo, a good place for it.

Bail-Preventive detention will

be an issue next month. A bill

and a constitutional amendment

would provide that anyone out

on bail or-his own recognizance

for one felony and arrested for

another, not be released. We

hope to oppose successfully.

Loyalty Oaths - A watered

down version of the unconstitu-

tional "affirmative" loyalty oath

for teachers (which the Depart-

ment of Education recently

abandoned at ACLU's insistence)

was passed onto the Assembly

floor without debate. Another

court action will be necessary

when it becomes law.

A general loyalty oath for all

public employees, disclaiming

active, knowing membership in

organizations advocating the ov-

erthrow of the government was

defeated in the Criminal Proce-

dure Committee.

Sexual Conduct - A bill by

John Burton and Willie Brown

of San Francisco, which would

legalize oral copulation between

consenting adults in private (het-

Challenge Ban

On Berkeley

Assemblies

Continued from Page 1-

many were wounded. For the

first time a university campus

was the victim of an aerial gas

attack. There were also injuries

to policemen but, happily, no po-

liceman was shot, as occurred

last September, and no police-

man was struck with a bomb, as

occurred last- spring.

Inappropriate Response

Although the disturbance was

unquestionally critical, the Gov-

ernor's response banning all pub-

lic meetings in Berkeley was

hardly appropriate. Even the

Federal Bureau of Investigation

has recognized that:

"A peaceful or lawful

demonstration should not be

looked upon with disfavor

by a police agency; rather it

should be considered as a

safety valve possibly serving

to prevent a riot...."

The Governor has a different

idea, ACLUNC attempted to test

its validity by bringing a federal

civil rights suit to enjoin the en-

forcement of his regulations.

Staff Counse] Paul Halvonik, a

Berkeley resident, brought the

suit on behalf of himself, three

other Berkeley residents. and all

other persons similarly situated

(i.e., all residents of Berkeley).

The individual plaintiffs other

than Halvonik are Professor

Charles Sellers and Margo Pet-

ers of the Berkeley Coalition, a

Berkeley political organization

which was denied the use of the

Berkeley Community Theatre for

an assembly because of the Gov-

ernor's regulations, and the

Reverend John Pairman Brown,

an associate minister of the

South Campus Community Min-

istry (Free Church) which, be-

cause of the regulations, had to

suspend their open-air services

and the church meetings of

which were technically illegal

under the regulations.

The suit, filed on May 19, re-

quested an immediate - order

temporarily `restraining the en-

forcement of the regulations, an

injunction, after full hearing,

restraining the enforcement of

the regulaations and a declara-

tion that the Governor of Califor-

nia does not have the power to

suspend the First Amendment.

Restrainiing Order Denied

The request for a temporary

restraining order was heard by

Federal District Judge Robert

Peckham on May 20. Judge Peck-

ham ruled that, given the magni-

tude of the case, he would not

grant a temporary restraining

order but he set May 26 as the

date for hearing on the injunc-

tion and cautioned the deputy

state attorney general, represent-

ing the Governor, that the regu-

lations presented "grave consti-

tutional questions." On May 25,

the day before the scheduled

hearing on the injunction, the

Governor rescinded his regula-

tions; because of the rescision

Judge Peckham declined to issue

an injunction. -

_ The suit, however, is not dead.

ACLUNC will press its conten-

tion that the federal courts de-

clare that the First Amendment

cannot be suspended at will by

the Governor of California.

erosexual or homosexual) has

been heard in committee and

at this point has a very good

chance of being passed to the

Assembly floor. Its chances

there, and in the Senate, are un- ~

certain,

Marijuana-AB 112, a bill by

Edwin Z'Berg (D-Sacramento) to

allow first-offense marijuana

possessers sentenced before No-

vember, 1968 retroactively to en-

joy a misdemeanor record (to

conform to current law) has

passed the Assembly and the

Senate Judiciary Committee. It

now needs only to be passed by

the Senate and signed by the

Governor.

Next month, the major hear

ings on marijuana law reform

will be held. Chances of passage

are slight-Charles C. Marson.

Validity of

Draft Law to

Be Challenged

Continued from Page 1-

and procedural inequities of the

draft system. The _ selection

process discriminates against the

disadvantaged segments of so-

ciety including minority and. eth-

nic groups and favors the more

wealthy and better educated.

Furthermore, the draft system

has never taken seriously the im-

portance of advice to registrants

so that they can be aware of

ee rights and duties under the

aw.

Recent ACLU Cases

Oestereich, 1968, U.S. Supreme

Court overruled punitive reclas-

sification and attempted induc-

tion of draft exempt theological

student who protested the war.

Wolff and Shortt, 1967, U.S.

Court of Appeals prohibits Army

induction of college students who

participated in sit-in protest at

local draft board.

Gutnecht, 1969, U.S. Supreme

Court agrees to hear validity of

Selective Service punitive reclas-

sification and subsequent four-

year prison sentence of draft

registrant who protested war.

Breen, 1969, U.S. Supreme

Court agrees to hear case of col-

lege . student reclassified and

summoned for induction follow-

ing his protest against Vietnam

War.

Noyd, 1969, U.S. Supreme

Court hears argument attempt-

ing to establish right of Air

Force officer who was convicted

by court martial for refusing to

train pilots for Vientnam, to be

free of imprisonment "during

military appeal procedures.

Oppose Federal

Anti-Riot Law

Continued from Page 2-

who:

"(a) ... travels in interstate or

foreign commerce with intent

to incite or organize a riot,

and who thereafter incites or

organizes a riot...If either

the course of a preexisting

riot is furthered by such in-

citing or organizing - (em-

phasis added)

(b) ... travels in interstate or

foreign commerce with intent

to commit any act of violence

in furtherance of a riot, and

who thereafter commits or -at

tempts to commit any act of

violence in furtherance of a

viot...if the riot occurs or is

underway at the time of such

an act or attempt..." (empha-

sis added)

"Inciting or organizing a_ riot"

meant:

*...urging or instigating oth-

er persons to riot, where such

urging or instigating is done

at a time and place and under

such circumstances as to fur-

ther the course of an existing

riot or to create an imminent

danger of a riot occurring,

and shall not mean the mere

advocacy of ideas or the mere

expression of belief." (em-

phasis added)

Prayers in S.F.

Tiny Tot Program

Discontinued

The recitation of prayers by

children participating in the San

Francisco Recreation and Park

Department's "Tiny Tot Pro-

gram" was discontinued last

month after protests were me

by the ACLU,"

A complaint was received by

the ACLU from the mother of

a child who attends the class at

the Fulton Playground. The mo-

ther claimed her child had been

taught to say grace before being

served juice and cookies. The di-

rector of the program, Mrs. El-

ean Thomas, admitted that the

practice was not only followed

at the Fulton Playground but at

all other playgrounds as well.

Joseph M. Caverly, the new

General Manager of the Depart-

ment, stated that "Upon receipt

of your letter I asked that an

immediate investigation of this

matter be made by Mr. Joseph

L. Misuraca, Assistant Superin-

tendent of Recreation. He has

reported to me today that all

staff members concerned have

been instructed to discontinue

this portion of the Tiny Tot

Program at once.

First and Sixth

Amendment

Cases Declined

The Supreme Court of Cali-

fornia has declined to hear two

ACLUNC cases. One is the "Ber-

keley Gag Rule Case" in which

four criminal defendants attack-

ed the constitutionality of a Mun-

icipal Court order which pro-

_ hibited all parties to a criminal

ease, their counsel, and all stu-

dents at the University of Cali-

fornia, from, "directly or indi-

rectly releasing to any news

media information or. opinion

concerning the trial or any issue

likely to. be involved therein..."

The rule had the effect of pro-

hibiting the defendants from de-

ending themselves against attack

in the media. The Court of Ap-

peal upheld the order by a 2-1

decision. Justice Peters of the

State Supreme Court dissented

from the refusal to grant review.

The Gag Rule Case will now be

taken to the United States Su-

preme Court.

The other case in which the

Supreme Court, refused to grant

review `involved' a request that

counsel be appointed for an in- .

digent who was appealing ~her

misdemeanor conviction to the

appellate division of the Alame-

da County Superior Court. The

Superior Court had denied her

request for appeinted counsel

and ACLUNC asked the Court

of Appeal to reverse the Super-

ior Court decision. The Court

of Appeal declined relief and

the Supreme Court of California

has refused to review that de-

cision.

The first right of a citizen

Is the right

JOIN TODAY

To be responsible QE 151

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Patron Membership... ...:......... 3. ee 200

Sustaining Membership ............. OU

Business and Professional Membership ...... oo 25

Family Membership .............. eS

Annual Membership ............ eas eee

Student Membership ..... ofa se

ACLU News Subscription .............. ee . .$2.50

Contributions are deductible for income tax purposes

NAME ee Sse es cers Se

ADDRESS and ZIP CODE ii ae

TELEPHONE NUMBER .............0.. AMT, ENCLOSED... .....cent:

503 Market Street

_All

San Francisco, 94105

de