vol. 34, no. 9

_ American

Civil Liberties

Union

olume XXXIV

SAN FRANCISCO, SEPTEMBER, 1969

No. 9

Police Raid

Movie Theatres,

Arrest Patrons

Last month the San Francisco Police Department, under

the direction of Ed Nevin, intrepid leader of the vice squad,

began raiding San Francisco's "nudie"' movie houses, arrest-

ing the managers and arresting the patrons. The managers

of the movie houses had, in recent months, become inured to

these arrests but the arresting

of patrons was an innovation.

The managers were arrested un-

der the state obscenity law but

the patrons were arrested under

a local ordinance which prohibits

visiting a "disorderly house."

Two theatre owners brought

actions in the Federal District

_ Court in which they requested

an injunction prohibiting the San

Francisco Police from "harass-

ing" them and, specifically, pro-

hibiting the arrest of movie ex-

hibitors until after an adversary

hearing has been held addressed

to the question whether the

movies are in fact obscene.

Patrons Defended

At the hearing on the man-

agers' motion for a temporary

restraining order, Paul Halvonik

and volunteer attorney Jerome

Falk appeared as friends-of-the-

court on behalf of the patrons.

When Federal District Judge

Alfonso J. Zirpoli indicated that

he would not issue a temporary

order prohibiting the police from

arresting the theatre managers,

Halvonik suggested that the

Court issue a nairower order

which would prohibit the police

from arresting patrons at a thea-

tre, When the City refused to

agree to abate the patron raids

until there could be a full hear-

ing on the matter, Judge Zirpoli

announced that he would "issue

an order along the lines sug-

gested by the American Civil

Liberties Union." The order was

issued and a full hearing on a

request for a permanent injunc-

tion will be heard shortly.

Reasons for Challenge

In anticipation of the hearing -

for an injunction, ACLUNC has

filed a brief, prepared by Falk,

Halvonik and Assistant Staff

Counsel Charles Marson, contend-

ing that the arrest of movie pat- ~

rons is unconstitutional for three

different reasons: :

(1) Under the decisions of the

United States Supreme Court, no

obscenity law is valid that does

not limit obscenity offenses to

offenses that are "knowingly"

done. In a case where a book

seller is charged with distribut-

ing obscenity, for example, it

must be established that he knew

the matter was obscene. As the

Supreme Court has explained it:

"The Constitution requires proof

of scienter [{ie., guilty knowl-

edge} to avoid the hazard of self-

censorship of constitutionally

protected material and to com-

pensate for the ambiguities in-

herent in the definition of ob-

scenity." This tendency to self-

censorship is acute in the situa-

{ton where a patron of the thea- ~

tre thinks he will be subject to

arrest if he views an obscene

film or play. He will tend to con-

fine his viewing to those films he

knows are permissible and with-

out having viewed the films he

will be hard put to know, for

certain, what films are imper- -

missible. The patron will have to

limit himself to those presenta-

tions widely known to be bland

or know that he is subjecting

himself to arrest.

(2) The state has no interest

in insuring the purity of peoples'

minds. Earlier this year the

United States Supreme Court

held that the state cannot make

it a crime to possess and view

obscene matter in the confines of

one's own home because "the as-

sertion that the state has: the

right to control the moral con-

tent of a person's thoughts .

is wholly inconsistent with the

philosophy of the First Amend-

ment." Thus while the state can

prohibit the exhibition of ob-

scenity it may not prohibit the

act of viewing obscenity.

(3) Local municipalities may

not enact obscenity laws. The ar-

rests of the patrons were made

pursuant to a municipal code that

prohibits visitations to a `dis-

orderly house." As enforced by

the San Francisco Police the

"disorderly house" section is

being used as an obscenity law.

Under the California Constitu-

tion, once the legislature has

adopted a comprehensive code of

regulation in a particular field,

local municipalities are prohi-

bited from adopting "supplemen-

tary" legislation, When the state

has "pre-empted" a d.eid there

is no room for local laws. Nu-

merous cases have held that the

state legislature has pre-empted

the area of obscenity and that

there is no room for a local law

prohibiting "obscene" activities. .

Loitering Law

Challenged

Representing a group of Black

Panthers who were arrested for

selling their newspapers in San

Francisco's East Bay Terminal,

Staff Counsel Paul Halvonik has

filed a brief in the Municipal

Court challenging the constitu-

tionality of California's basic

anti-loitering law. The law pro-

vides:

"Every person who commits

any of the following acts shall

be guilty of disorderly con-

duct, a misdemeanor: . , . (e)

Who loiters or wanders upon

the streets or from place to

place without apparent reason

or business and who refuses to

identify himself and to account

for his presence when request-

ed by any peace officer so to

do, if the surrounding circum-

stances are such as to indicate

to a reasonable man that the

public safety demands such

identification."

Reasons for Challenge

ACLUNC contends the law vio-

lates the Fifth Amendment, by

requiring a person to incrimi-

nate himself; the Sixth Amend-

ment, because a person must

speak before consulting with

counsel; the Fourteenth Amend-

ment, because it is unconstitu-

tionally vague; the Fourth

Amendment, because it provides

for seizure of a person without

reasonable cause; the Ninth

Amendment, because it is an in-

vasion of privacy; and the First

Amendment, because it per-

mitted, by its broad sweep, the

infringement of afl exercise of

free expression and because it

requires persons to. identify

themselves while exercising the

right of free expression, thus

violating the First Amendment's

right of anonymity.

All-Chapter Conference

Saturday,

October 4

On Saturday, October 4, ACLUNC members involved in

Chapter activity will participate in an all-day Conference, The

agenda for the Conference will include:

a) Financing the Chapter operation

b) Building Chapter membership and participation

c) Workshops on topics of current community interest,

such as:

1-police practices

2-student rights

3-education of the public

4--unequal protection of the law.

The Conference will allow Chapters to share each other's

experiences and also to be briefed by Branch Staff. Partici-

pants should come away from the Conference with a significant

amount of material to help them strengthen their Chapters and

Chapter programs within the coming year.

All members of Chapter Boards and those active on Chapter

committees are urged to attend, as are all Branch Board mem-

_ bers, Other ACLUNC members especially interested in attend-

ing will be welcome, facilities permitting and should notify

Carol Weintraub at the Branch office (telephone 433-2'750)

if they wish te attend. Lunch will be arranged for a minimal

fee ($1.50) and a packet of materials will be sent to all who

return the coupon below.

The Conference will be held on Saturday, October 4, from

10:00 a.m, to 4:30 p.m, Those planning to attend are advisea

to contact the chairman of their local Chapter AND. return the

form below te the ACLUNC office. The Conference will be

held at the Friends House, 2160 Lake Street, San Francisco.

Miss Carol Weintraub

ACLUNC

503 Market Street

San Francisco, Ca, 94105

September, 1969

I plan to participate in the Chapter Conference on Saturday,

October 4, I am a member of the ._.........cccccccceeceeeee Chapter,

and particularly interested in discussions relating to the fol-

lowing matters:........000.000000000.....

fo want you to order a lunch for me (at $1.50).

(do) (do not)

(Name)...........

ACLUNC Asks

Challenge on

Book Censorship

San Francisco's High School District is planning a course

in Black Studies for the fall semester. As supplementary

texts for the courses, the governing board selected two works

by contemporary black authors: Soul on Ice, a collection of

essays and letters by Eldridge Cleaver, and "The Dutchman,

a play by LeRoi Jones. By law

the power to select supplemen-

tary texts is vested exclusively in

local governing boards. This law,

however, did not deter Max Raf-

ferty, State Superintendent of

Public Instruction, Declaring the

works "blatantly obscene," Dr.

Rafferty announced that he

would attempt to revoke the cre-

dential of any teacher who used

the books in a classroom,

Jenkins Capitulates

A week after Dr. Rafferty's an-

nouncement, Dr. Robert E. Jen-

kins, Superintendent of Schools,

capitulated to Rafferty and: an-

nounced that the books would be

removed from the courses. Jen-

kins conceded that this action |

was being taken with the knowl-

edge that Dr. Rafferty would

probably not be able to make

good on his credential-revocation

threat. Jenkins said, however,

that he did not want to subject

his teachers to a legal struggle

over their credentials and that,

therefore, he was not only remov-

ing the two books but. inviting

Rafferty's staff to come in and

review other texts used in the

San Francisco Schools.

ACLUNCE Letter

In response to Dr, Jenkins' an-

nouncement, Staff Counsel Paul

Halvonik sent him the following

letter:

"Max Raffert"'s statement of

last week that, in spite of his

often declared support for local

control of schools, he would ar-

rogate to himself the power to

censor San Francisco School

books was, to us, deeply disturb-

ing. _

"Even more disturbing is the

discovery that the San Francisco

Schools are submitting to this in-

timidation by banning books that

Dr. Rafferty deems unwholesome

and inviting his staff to place

their imprimatur on books be-

fore they are used.

"You have decided to subject

a generation of San Francisco

students to an education limited

to Rafferty-endorsed ideas even

though your own counsel has

advised you that Dr. Rafferty

probably has no power to revoke

the credentials of teachers who

use books disliked by Dr. Raffer-

ty. The reason given for your ac-

tion is that you are protecting

your teachers from losing their

employment while litigating the

right of San Francisco students

to read locally approved texts.

That reason is, we think, inade-

quate.

"First of all, why not let the

individual teacher decide wheth-

er he wishes to submit to Max

Rafferty's censorship or chal-

lenge it? When the school makes

that decision for the teacher it

smacks of paternalism, Secondly,

why not bring suit to enjoin Dr.

Rafferty from unlawfully inter-

_ fering with the San Francisco

schools? Frankly, we prefer this

second course. We are afraid that

_ Dr. Rafferty, emboldened by his

ability to blow away the First

Amendment in San_ Francisco

with a simple wag of the tongue,

will dash about the state snuffing

out academic freedom wherever

he perceives heresy. Moreover,

this second course has the ad-

vantage of challenging Dr, Raf-

ferty's censorship and, at the

same time, protecting teachers

- from the threat of credential-

revocation.

"We urge you to reconsider

your decision and resist Dr. Raf-

ferty's crude attempt at censor-

ship. The American Civil Liber-

ties Union will fully support your

efforts to repel this assault upon

academic freedom."

As of this writing, Dr. Jenkins

has yet to reply. Mayor Alioto

and the San Francisco Chronicle,

however, have endorsed the sug-

gestion that suit be brought to

enjoin Rafferty's unlawful action.

"Lost Soldier"

Must Serve

More Time

Private Richard Beaty, who

spent eleven months at home in

Porterville because the Army

told him to go to Fort Lewis,

Washington, but first to go home

and await a reporting date, must

make up the "bad time."

Although he contacted the Army

three times during this period

and each time was told to go

home and await orders, Federal

Judge William T. Sweigert ruled

this month that he was under a

continuing duty to seek a clarifi-

cation of his status.

Beaty was represented by

ACLUNC in a habeas corpus pro-

ceeding seeking his discharge.

The decision is being appealed,

Berkeley Barb at

Litigation Continues

In July, when Berkeley Munic-

ipal Court Judge George Brunn

held that the Alameda District

Attorney could not, constitution-

ally, prosecute Berkeley Barb

editor Max Scherr for publishing

"obscenity" unless it was prepar-

ed to charge that the entire news-

paper, in which a picture offen-

sive to the district attorney ap-

peared, was obscene, he gave the

district attorney ten days in

which to file an amended com-

plaint. The district attorney did

file an amended complaint charg-

ing that the entire March 21

issue of the Berkeley Barb was

obscene, Scherr's attorney, Staff

Counsel Paul Halvonik, has now

challenged the sufficiency of the

new complaint, the third that the

district attorney has filed in this

matter.

In his demurrer Halvonik con-

tends that-the obscenity charge

"would be laughable if the de-

fendant were not facing a crim-

inal charge. But the defendant is

facing a criminal charge and the

criminal complaint is.a very dis-

turbing and alarming frivolity."

Halvonik goes on to point out

that the primary theme of the

paper does not deal with sex at

all. The primary content of the

paper is political and those polit-

ical articles, since they attempt

to express ideas, are not "utterly

without redeeming social impor-

tance" and hence the Barb, taken

as a whole, is not obscene.

Argument on the challenge to

the latest complaint filed by the

district attorney will be heard in

the middle of this month before

Judge Brunn,

Due Process

Highest Court

Asked to Review

Security Case

The Supreme Court of the

United States has been asked to.

invalidate a Department of De-

fense "security clearance investi-

gation procedure."

The petition to the Court, pre-

pared by Staff Counsel Paul Hal-

vonik, points out that at the in-

vestigation hearing one must an-

swer all questions posed by the

investigator and will have his

security clearance revoked if he

declines, on any grounds what-

ever, to answer a question. More-

over, the hearing contains none

of the rudiments of due process.

There is no requirement of

written specification of charges;

no opportunity, consequently, to

reply to such charges in writing;

no opportunity to confront one's

accusers; no right of cross. ex-

amination; no notice as to the

burden of proof; no review of

the proceedings.

The case involves Dexter.

Shoultz,. a Lockheed employee

who has held his security clear-

_ance for thirteen years and re-

fused, on advice of Executive Di-

rector Ernest Besig, to answer

questions propounded during

such an investigation. Shoultz's

security clearance was supsended

but reinstated when Federal Dis-

trict Judge Robert Peckham held

the procedure invalid.

The United States Court of Ap-

peals reversed Judge Peckham,

holding that the investigation

need not contain due process

guarantees because, if Shoultz

would answer all questions, he

would receive a hearing with due

process guarantees before his

clearance could be finally re-

voked.

Halvonik urges the Supreme

Court to reverse the Court of Ap-

peals decision on the ground that

it is at war with the concept of

due process. "Due Process,' he

contends, "is not a governmental

ritual to be performed as an anti-

climatic appeal from an unfair

hearing."

Criminal

Complaints

Are Dismissed

During the crisis over the

People's Park in Berkeley, Gov-

ernor Reagan, by means of

"emergency regulations,' made

it a misdemeanor to use a loud-

speaker in the City of Berkeley,

to assemble in the City of Berke-

ley or to "loiter" in the City of

Berkeley. Staff counsel Paul Hal-

vonik brought an action in the

Federal District Court seeking

an injunction against the Gov-

ernor's regulations. On the day

before the federal hearing was

scheduled, the Governor repeal-

ed his regulations and the Fed-

eral District Court, quite natural-

ly, refused to issue an injunction

against regulations no longer in

existence. Halvonik then shifted

his attack to the defense of per-

sons arrested for violating the

regulations. Demurrers to the

criminal complaints charging vio-

lations of the Governor's regula-

tions were filed. Rather than

reply to the demurrers, the Ala-

meda District Attorney dismissed

charges against all persons ar-

rested pursuant to the "emer-

gency regulations."

Can You Help

Pvt. Sood? ;

The Army may parole Nesrey

Dean Sood first of the Presidio

27 convicted of ``mutiny," if he

can demonstrate that a job will

await him upon his release from

Fort Leavenworth. :

Anyone who may be able to

provide employment for Sood |

should notify ACLUNC Staff

| Counsel Paul Halvonik in writing.

ACLU NEWS

SEPTEMBER, 1969

Page 2

Sixth Amendment

Court of Appeal

Denies Speedy

Trial for Minors

The California Court of Appeal

has held that Juveniles will not

receive the benefit of a statute

which requires the prosecution

- to bring a case to trial within 45

days after arraingnment.

The case involves Cindy Lou

Cox, a minor, who was charged

with failure to stop after an ac-

cident involving property dam-

age, Her trial date was set five

months from her arraignment.

An adult not brought to trial

within 45 days would have the

charges dismissed but the Court

of Appeal, with the simple state-

ment that "the statutory pro-

visions relating to speedy trial do

not purport to be applicable to

juvenile proceedings," has held

that Cindy Cox must stand trial.

Volunteer ACLUNC attorney

Steven Hallert is preparing a

petition asking the Supreme

Court of California to review

and reverse the Court of Appeal

decision.

Equal Protection

Fight for Free

Transcripts

Goes On

Notwithstanding the U.S.

Supreme Court's recent decision

in Williams v, Oklahoma, hold.

ing that the Equal Protection

Clause of the Fourteenth Amend-

ment requires the state fur-

nish a free transcript on appeal

to an indigent misdemeanor de-

fendant, the San Francisco Su-

perior Court has denied a free

transcript to Barry Biderman and.

Joy Magezis, students at San

Francisco State College.

- The two were convicted of

"loitering around a school" after-

putting on a play (in a park near

a school) which portrayed po-

lice in an ungenerous light.

ACLUNC Staff Counsel Paul

Halvonik, who represented the

defendants at the trial, brought

a mandamus action to compel

provision of the transcript. It was

this petition that was denied.

ACLUNC plans to file another

mandamus action in the Court

of Appeal.

Support for

Carmel

Leafleter

ACLUNC, joining Carmel at-

torney Herbert A. Schwartz, has

asked the Superior Court of Mon-

terey County to reverse the con-

viction of Schwartz's client, Ro-

ger Lorenz.

Lorenz was arrested last Sep-

tember while passing out hand-

bills at the foot of Carmel's

-Ocean Avenue. Lorenz was sub-

sequently convicted for the of-

fense of "interfering" with the

movement of traffic.

Staff Counsel Paul Halvonik

has filed a_ friend-of-the-court

brief on Lorenz's behalf main-

taining that the arrest and con-

viction violated the First Amend-

ment to the United States Con-

stitution. Streets and sidewalks,

the brief argues, are the prin-

cipal forum of expression for the

poor, the unpopular and others

who do not have access to the

mass media. Accordingly, Halvo-.

nik contends, any regulation of

leafleting is constitutionally sus-

pect, particularly a regulation

which permits a person to be

criminally punished because of

the reaction of his audience. Lo-

renz allegedly interfered with

traffic when occupants of ve-

hicles slowed down to accept the

handbills. If traffic was substan-

tially hindered, the police should

have directed traffic to move on

rather than arresting Lorenz.

ACLU Suit Tests

Wiretaps by FBI

Of Groups in U.S.

The ACLU has filed suit in

the U. S. District Court in Wash-

ington, D. C. challenging the

Federal government's use of elec-

tronic surveillance to gather evi-

dence in `domestic security' cases.

The suit specifically asks the

court to prohibit the use of wire-

taps against nine civil rights and

antiwar groups and against eight

radicals charged with conspiring

to incite violence at last sum-

mer's Democratic National Con-

vention in Chicago.

It names U. S. Attorney Gen-

eral John N. Mitchell and Fed-

eral Bureau of Investigation Di-

rector J. Edgar Hoover as de-

fendants and asks the court to

bring criminal proceedings

against them and their agents for

past surveillances.

Freedom of the Press

Newsvendors |

Busted'; Charge

Dropped

Robert Altman and Robin Sul-

livan were selling "The Resist-

ance," a civilian underground,

anti-draft newspaper, in the Hills-

dale Shopping Center in San Ma-

teo when they were told to leave.

Upon their refusal, they were

arrested under a San Mateo or-

dinance making it illegal to "re-

main ... upon any real proper-

ty ... without the consent of the

owner ,.."

ACLUNC agreed to defend the

two vendors, pointing out that

the right to sell literature in a

shopping center is protected by

the First Amendment, and that

in any event the ordinance was

hopelessly overbroad. After dis-

cussions with the City Attorney,

the charges were dropped.

. "tothe Editer

Peoples' Park March

Dear Editor:

In response to the letter of

H. F. M. in the August ACLU

News, and to the discussion of

the Berkeley - Albany Chapter's

participation in the Memorial

Day march in the July News, the

action of the Chapter's Board of

Directors should again be clari-

fied: our participation in the

march was not in support of the

People's Park as such. The Chap-

ter's Beard members were fully

aware of the fact that the con-

troversy over who would use and

develop the land in question was

not a civil liberties matter. Dur-

ing our discussion of the crisis,

we never considered taking a

position on the park.

Our decision to march arose

out of a deep concern that civil

liberties, and First Amendment

guarantees, were in serious jeo-

pardy fer that two-week period,

-and that we needed to physically

demonstrate our right to peace-

ably assemble. It was in a sense

an enactment of our faith-or

hope-that our First Amendment

rights did indeed still exist.

We marched in a group with

uniform signs carrying but one

message: the words of the First

Amendment. We carried hand-

outs stating our purpose in par-

ticipating: support of the First

Amendment. Thousands marched,

and not all for a single reason.

Many participated, as we did,

because they felt in exercising

our Constitutional rights we help

to preserve them. |

H. F. M. states that such ac-

tions as the B-A Chapter Board's

will change the character and

the nature of the organization.

Without debating this thesis at

this point, I think it raises ques-

tions of broad concern which

need further discussion, hopeful-

ly in the News. Such discussion

-the sign of an involved mem-

bership-should be encouraged.

Diane Schroerluke, Berkeley

(A

Ss.

Your Nominations, Please

Election to the Board of Directors of the ACLUNC

of members at-large is governed by a section of the By-

Laws which provides that, "Every year, the September

issue of the ACLU NEWS shall carry an invitation to

the Union's membership to suggest names to the nom-

inating committee, and such names must reach the Un-

ion's office not later than September 30 in order to re-

ceive consideration."

30 At-Large Members

_ The Board has a maximum membership of 30 mem-

sers at-large who are eligible to serve two consecutive

full three-year terms, after which they become ineligible

ior oue year. The terms of the 30 members at-large are

staggered so that ten offices become vacant each year.

This year, two incumbents, attorney Leo E. Borre-

gard, who practices in San Francisco and resides in

Berkeley, and John Brisbin Rutherford, structural en-

gineer of Los Altos are ineligible for re-election since

they have both served two conscutive three-year terms.

Four incumbents have been serving unexpired one-

year terms and are now eligible for election to three-

year terms. They are Dr. Alfred J. Azevedo, educator

and resident of Tiburon; Jerome B. Falk, Jr., who re-

sides in Berkeley and practices law in San Francisco;

Prof. Mare A. Franklin of Stanford Law School, who

resides in Portola Valley; and Prof. John Searle of the

University of California, Berkeley. Two incumbents

have served unexpired terms of two years and con-

sequently are eligible for election to three-year terms.

They are Dr. Price M. Cobbs, San Francisco psychiatrist,

and Mrs. Esther Pike of San Francisco, who is engaged

in civie activities. The following two board members

have each served one three-year term and are eligible

for election to a second successive three-year term: Prof.

Van Dusen Kennedy of the University of California,

Berkeley, former board chairman and now vice-chair-

man of the board, and Dr. Robert L. Nolan of Oakland,

a pediatrician and also a lawyer

In addition to the eight positions to which board

members are eligible for re-election for terms expiring

in 1973,~ two vacancies will have to be filled in the

Class of '73, one in the Class of '71 (arising from the

resignation of attorney Gerald D. Marcus of San Fran-

cisco and Palo Alto).

Alternate Method of Nomination

The By-Laws also provide that "In addition to the

foregoing method of proposing names to the nominating

committee, members may make nominations directly to

the Board of Directors in the following manner: Not

later than January 2 of each year, nominations may be

subinitted by the membership directly.to the Ruard of jf

Directors, provided each nomination be supported by -

the signatures of 15 or more members in good standing

and be accompaied by a summary of qualifications

and the written consent of the nominee."

Please send your suggestions for Board members

at-large to ACLU, 503 Market Street, San Francisco,

94105, before September 30, giving as much biograph-

ical information about your candidate as possible. In

making your suggestions please bear in mind that Board

members must be ready to defend the civil liberties

of ALL persons without distinction; that they are re-

quired to attend noon meetings in San Francisco the

second Thursday of each month except August, serve

on committees and, of course, must be members of

ACLU of Northern California.

The nominating committee, to be appointed by Chair-

man Howard H. Jewel at the September 11 board meet-

ing, will be composed of two Board and three non-

Board members.

A

Berkeley/Albany Chapter

Chairman and Chapter Legaf

Panel Chairman, will be honored

at a dinner party, Sunday, Sep-

tember 14, at the Schroerluke's,

870 Keeler Avenue,

at 7:30 p.m.

who recently resigned from the

Chapter because of a move to

Oakland, will feature gourmet

Italian dishes (omitting spa-

ghetti), wine, fruit and cheese.

Carl Bernstein, classical guitarist

from Vin et Fromage, will play.

to the first 80 people who make

reservations. Cost is $3.00 per

person. Te reserve call the Chap-

ter Office, 548-1322, or Diane

Schroerluke, 527-3632.

DINNER TO HONOR

KEN KAWAICHI

Ken Kawaichi,

REPRINTS

AVAILABLE

Reprints of two articles of in-

terest to ACLU members are

available from the San Francisco

office. ``The Courts Have Failed

the Poor," by J. Kelly Wright

(2 judge on the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of

Columbia circuit), first appeared

former

Vice

Berkeley,

The dinner for Mr. Kawaichi,

zine, March 9, 1969. It sells for

$0.21, including postage.

"Defender of Unpopular

Causes' first appeared in Ebony,

January 1969 and is about Eleanor

H. Norton, Assistant Legal Direc-

tor of ACLU, a black young wom-

an attorney who in the course of

her work for ACLU has defended

the free speech rights of George

C. Wallace and of individual

Klansmen. It sells for $0.16, in-

cluding postage.

Space and food are limited

in the New York Times Maga-

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NEWS

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern Califernia

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, Californie

ERNEST BESIG .. . Editor

$03 Market Street, Sem Francisce, Californie 94108, 4339-2750

Subcription Rates -- Two Dollars and Fifty Cents a Year

Twenty-Five Cents Per Copy 152

RESULTS OF 1969 MEMBERSHIP CAMPAIGN

Note: 1. Membership figures include family members. The totals, therefore, do not reflect the number of new indi-

vidual memberships. The number of new student members is shown in parentheses next to the column of

total memberships. (c) :

2. Under column 5 "Contributions" are listed non-membership contributions and extra contributions made by

members exclusive of those sent in response to the June Special Funds Appeal.

3. Only the names of chairmen and volunteers who undertook overall responsibility for the campaign within

chapters, councils, and specified areas are given. They were assisted by numerous other volunteers whose

efforts are deeply appreciated.

`New. Subscribers

New Memberships Contributions to NEWS Total

CHepiets ee Seen Dallas Noles bols Nas Ballas lnconty

Berkeley/Albany ...... 153 (: 64) 1324.50 11 248.00 1 2.50 1575.00

resn0. 23 ~=-(:16) 132.50 - - 3 7.50 140.00

Marin... BS. ( 42) 605.50 3 60.00 1 2.50 668.00

Mid-Peninsula .............183 (94) 708.00 3 23.00 1 1.25 932.25

Monterey .................... 11. (euro 3) 74.00 2 59.00 = 133.00

Mount Diablo .............15 ( 2) 133.00 - -_ - - 133.00

Sacramento ................ 63 ( 27) 44150 3 45.00 1 3.50 490.00

Santa Clara .............. 34 (8) 285.00 3 120.00 1 1.25 406.25

Santa Cruz ................-. 15 (4 0x00B0(R)":11850 - oo 1 1.25 119.75.

Sonoma ............ ab. 9) 22800 = 1 250 230.50

Stockton... SE, 3) 174.00 2 15.00 1 1.25 190.25

Oakland Area Co. ...... 32 (10) 241.50 6 75.00 2 2.50 319.00

West Contra Costa Co. 15 ( 1) 143.50 iz 12.00 1 3.50 159.00

Non-chapter areas and miscellaneous

Chico 1 (- 5.00 - ~- _- - 5.00

Modesto. .............0........ 6 -( 1) 50.00 - os _-_ - 50.00

| Napa/Solano Cos. ... 8 ( 1) 11200 - - 112.00

San Francisco ............ 176 (42) 1661.00 12 202.50 6 11.00 1874.50

Southern Alameda ... 14 ( 5). 9750 1 1000 - - 107.50

Misc. California ........ 21 = C(.. 8) 269.75 1 7.00 50x00B0 3413.75 290.50

`San Mateo County ... 59 ( 10) 574.50 7 #11750 - - 692.50

Out of State ....... a 4 ( 1) 42.50 1 5.00 - - 47.50

Foreign ge ED - 8.000 - -_- -_ - 8.00

TOTAL. 32. 3. 889 (315) 7429.75 57 999.00 25 54.25 8483.00

Membership Chairman

Mrs. Retha Lobdell

Mr. Ronald Waidtlow

Mr. Walter Kassoway

Mmes. Marlene Levenson and

Judith Burgess

Mr. Vern Beck

Mmes., Marilyn Pennebaker

Miriam Di Pace

Mrs. Myra Schimke

Mr. Argo Gherardi

Messrs. Robert Lissner -

Stanley Stevens

Mrs. Linda Macpherson

Mr. Frank Jones

Mrs. B'Ann Hoff

Mr. Siraj Kadri

Office, aided by

Ditto

Office aided by Mmes.

Ditto

Ditto

Mrs. Emily Skolnick

Mrs. E. Keech

Keech and Angie King

Drop in New Members

1969 Membership Drive

Is a Disappointment

For the first time since 1964 the ACLUNC annual mem-

bership drive has: taken'a drop in' the number of' new ~

members and income gained, as of June 30, the end of the

drive. This year's gains were 99 fewer members than last

year and $18 less.

Evidently ACLU of Northern

California has not escaped the

drop experienced by the National

ACLU (which it calls "danger-

ous'), Like the National, ACLU-

NC is hard put to find specific

reasons for the break in the slow

but steadily rising gain in mem-

bership it has experienced here-

tofore.

Reasons for Drop

Some of the reasons which

may account for this year's dis-

appointing results are the fact

that a good many cause organi-

gations which do not solicit

through Community Chest also

find the Spring to be the best

time for membership and finance

campaigns. Locally, these now in-

clude television station KQED

and radio station KPFA whose

audiences include _ potential

ACLU members, Another reason

could be that the political cli-

mate has taken an overall toll of

the people who would be expect-

ed to join ACLU and who have

decided to support other causes

and organizations dealing with

various crises. The Marin Chap-

ter suffered because of such

crises in conservation, to the ex-

tent that members who would

have helped on the drive felt

compelled to assist in that field.

Problem In Timing

One reason for the drop is the

unsatisfactory timing between

the commencement of the drive

and the annua] turnover in chap-

ter boards. Outgoing boards have

not realized that they had to

make provision for organization

ef the drive, and new boards

have been faced with the task of

finding membership chairmen

and volunteers, with resultant

delays. However, this does not

explain the drop in San Fran-

cisco, which is not so handi-

capped.

Of the chapters which have

been static in terms of potential

new members Stockton did the

most remarkable job of pulling

itself out of the rut and it regis-

tered increases in both number

of members gained and income.

Santa Cruz, which suffered from

campaign leadership turnover in

mid-drive also registered gains.

Fresno, Mid- Peninsula, Sacra-

mento and Sonoma showed the

results of well-organized and con-

tinuing mechanisms for the an-

nual drive. The Berkeley-Albany

and Marin chapter results dem-

onstrate the organizational diffi-

culties noted. In addition, of

course, the Berkeley - Albany

chapter's attention focused on

the recent difficulties that the

city of Berkeley experienced, al-

most to the exclusion of al] other

business. Of all the chapters it

has traditionally been the biggest

source of new members and us-

ually runs almost equal with San

Francisco in terms of income.

This year a Branch Board

member, Mrs, Emily Sholnick,

undertook the drive in San Mateo

County. Working for only a short

but intensive period she "deliver-

ed" 59 new members and dou-

bled last year's income,

Southern Alameda County,

which showed signs of potential

a few years ago, dropped to show

more of a loss even than last

year's. The barriers of distance

between the communities in that

general area present an almost

insurmountable problem.

The two new councils (provi-

sionary chapters) of ACLUNC- (c)

Oakland and West Contra Costa

County have faced problems that

have taken energy away from

campaigning for membership. In

the case of the Oakland Council

there has been a complete turn-

over in the leadership that

brought about the organization

of the Council. West Contra

Costa is hard put to deal with

the civil liberties and related

problems with which it is de-

luged. On the whole, even if it

gets into a position in which it

can deal with the many problems

Panthers and Grand Jury

ACLUNC Afttacks Federal

Black. Panthers~Larry-. Carter,

Fred Crawford, and Steve Shead

were convicted last month of

contempt of court for refusing to

answer questions concerning pos-

sible violations of the new fed-

eral "anti-riot" law.

The three are represented by

the firm of Garry, Dreyfus, Mc-

Terman and Biotsky. Their con-

tempt convictions are being ap-

pealed, and ACLUNC has filed

an amicus brief attacking the

constitutionality of the statute.

Provisions of Law

The statute punishes anyone

who while traveling in interstate

or foreign commerce and has the

intent at the time of travel to (a)

incite a riot; (b) organize, pro-

mote, encourage, participate in,

or carry on a riot; (c) cemmit

any act of violence in further-

"Outside Agitator' Law

ance of a riot, or (d) to.aid or.-

abet any person in inciting or

participating in or carrying on a

riot or committing any act of vio-

lence in furtherance of a riot,

performs or attempts to perform

any other overt act for any of

the above purposes during the

course of his travel or any time

thereafter,

ACLUNC contends that the

statute is unconstitutional be-

cause it unreasonably inhibits in-

terstate travel, is both vague and

overboard under the _ First

Amendment, and permits punish-

ment of one who has an evil in-

tent at one. time but later

abandons it, and commits acts

innocent in themselves. s

Argument before the 9th Cir-

cuit of Appeal is expected to oc-

cur in September.

Continued from Page 4-

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Search and Seizure

The Warren Court exitec with

a flourish. On its last day it

handed down Chime] v. Califor-

nia, a decision which is clearly

one of the most important in the

nistory of the Warren Court. One

of the foremost police methods

of obtaining incriminating evi-

dence against individuals has

been the technique of "search

and incident to an arrest." An

arrest on a relatively m:nor

charge would frequently give rise

to a rather extensive search of

the defendant and his belong-

ings, which would then reveal

evidence of far more severe of-

fenses. Often, it was the latter

evidence which the potice were

that beset the community, it will

probably not be a prime mem-

bership recruitment area but an

action and service-oriented arm

of ACLUNC,

A great debt of gratitude is

owed to the many volunteers who

assisted in the drive, in the San

Francisco office, the two chap-

ter offices, and telephoned from

their homes. As always, their as-

sistance is indispensable.

after all along, and the arrest

served merely as a pretext. The

Chimel case cleared up much un-

certainty about the permissible

Fourth Amendment scope of a

search incident to an_ arrest,

overruling the previous case of

United States v. Rabinowitz. The

petitioner had been arrested in

his home for burglarizing a coin

shop and police officers then pro-

ceeded to conduct a search of his

entire three-bedroom house, in-

cluding the attic, the garage, a

small workshop, and _ various

drawers, They finally found some -

coins. Speaking for six members

of the Court, Justice Stewart

held that a search incident to an

arrest constitutionally can go no

further than the defendant's per-

son and the area within which

he reasonably could (1) obtain a

weapon or (2) destroy evidence.

Any further search must be con-

ducted later, with a search war-

rant,

In Spinelli v, United. States, .

the Court considered a search

pursuant to a search warrant.

The five to three decision (Jus-

tice Marshall did not participate)

was concerned with the standards

for establishing "probable cause"

LAW AND THE

CAMPUS

COMMUNITY

Ephraim Margolin, member of 0x00A7

the ACLUNC Board of Directors

and Chairman of its Legal Com-

mittee, will give a U.C. Extension

course on the Law and the |

Campus Community on the San

Francisco campuses.

Intended primarily for college

and junior college administra-

tors, the course will examine the

role of the law in the current

campus crisis; the relation of the

First Amendment rights of free

speech and assembly to such-

matters as pre-censorship, pro-

tected and privileged expression,

time, place and manner regula-

tions, libel, obscenity, fighting

words, curfew and states of

emergency, picketing and other

demonstrations, symbolic acts,

and academic freedom. It will

also include problems of internal

disciplinary procedures (the rights

of those disciplined and the

j rights of the institution) and

problems involying the outside

community such as subpoena

| powers of investigating bodies,

state control of curricula and

separation of church and state.

Grievance regulations in effect

on different compuses will be

compared. Course participants

will attempt to develop legal

guidelines for colleges to use

in formulating timely and effec-

tive standards and goals.

S. F. DATES and TIMES

The course on the San Fran-

cisco campus of U. C. Extension

will take place on successive

Thursday evenings, from 7 to

9:30, commencing Thursday,

October 2 and ending. Novem-

ber 20. :

SANTA CRUZ DATES and TIMES

| In Santa Cruz the course will

be given as follows: Saturday,

| October 4, starting at 9:30 a.m.,

| Saturday, October 25 and Sun-

day, October 26, starting at

9:30 a.m., and Saturday and

Sunday, November 15 and No-

; vember 16, starting at 9:30 a.m.

Applications for the course in

San Francisco should be re-

quested from U.C. Extension, 55

Laguna Street, San Francisco, |

California 94102. Applications

for the course in Santa Cruz

should be requested from De-

partment B, University Exten-

sion, University of California,

Berkeley, California 94720,

sufficient to justify the issuance

of a search warrant, The. true

meaning of the decision is some-

what in doubt, since the various

opinions in the case do not seem

to agree on exactly what the

holding was. Speaking for four

Justices, Mr. Justice Harlan's

opinion purported merely to ex-

plicate the standards already laid

out in the earlier case of Agui-

lar v. Texas. However, Justice

Black's dissenting opinion viewed |

Aguilar as having been expanded

"to almost unbelievable propor-

tions." Justice Fortas dissented

on different grounds, and Justice

Stewart dissented on grounds

which are impossible to figure

out. The "swing-man" turned out

to be Justice White, whose con-

curring opinion interprets the

majority opinion narrowly, One

thing is certain: a warrant based

on an informer's tip which is

- otherwise insufficient to furnish

probable cause will not be bol-

stered by corroborative informa-

tion in the warrant from an in-

dependent FBI investigation. In

the absence of a statement de-

tailing the manner in which the

affiant gathers his information

it is particularly critical that the

informer's tip describe the crimi-

nal activity in sufficient detail

"so that the magistrate may

know he is relying on something

more substantia] than a casual

rumor circulating in the under-

world or an accusation based

merely on an individual's gen-

eral reputation." -

To be concluded next month

ACLU MEWS

SEPTEMBER, 1969

Page 3

FIRST AMENDMENT

Political Advocacy

Ironically, the Ku Klux Klan

served as the vehicle for an ex-

pansion in the protection of po-

litical advocacy in the landmark

case of Brandenburg v Ohio. The

Court struck down Ohio's "crimi-

nal syndicalism" statute, and

finally explicitly overruled Whit-

ney v. California (1927) which

had upheld California's criminal

syndicalism law. The Klan had

held a rally at which speakers

talked of the possible need for

"revengence" against Blacks and

Jews. The statute was held con-

stitutionally deficient in that it

punished mere advocacy of vio-

lence as a means of accomplish-

ing political reform. Speeches did

not have to constitute an "in-

citement to imminent lawless ac-

tion." The case presents an inter-

ing enigma as to the status of

Dennis v. United States (1951),

which announced an attenuated

version of Justice Holmes' "clear

and present danger' doctrine.

The unanimous unsigned opinion

merely cites the Dennis case,

specifying neither agreemeut nor

disagreement with the "clear

present danger" doctrine, In con-

curring opinions, Justices Black

and Douglas said that the clear

and present danger test should be

thrown out completely, Justice

Douglas took the occasion to em-

phasize his dissent in the 1968 case

of United States v. O'Brien, in

which the Court upheld the con- ~

stitutionality of the draft card

burning law. Justice Douglas in-

sisted that under the First

Amendment, ``matters of belief,"

as opposed to overt action, should

always be fully protected from

any intrusion.

_ The opinion is vitally impor-

tant in its reaffirmation of the

doctrine indicated somewhat un-

clearly by Yates v. U.S. (1957).

In Brandenburg the Court made

clear that advocacy (even advo-

eacy of the moral necessity of

violence for political reform) is

constitutionally protected in the

absence of incitement to immi-

nent lawless action.

A conviction for publicly mu-

tilating and casting contempt

upon a United States flag was

reversed in Street v. New York.

After learning that James Mere-

dith had been shot in Mississippi

by a sniper, the defendant

burned an American flag on a

New York street corner and

stated to a policeman: "If they

did that to Meredith, we don't

need an American flag" and "We

don't need no damn flag." The

statute allowed conviction for

casting contempt upon the flag

"either by words or act." Though

the defendant had arguel his

right under the First Amend-

ment to make a dramatic politi-

cal statement by burning the

flag, Justice Harlan's majority

opinion rested cn the much nar-

rower ground that, under the

statute and evidence, it was pos-

sible that the conviction was

based on the spoken words alone

(which were constitutionality

protected under the circum-

stances of the case) rather than

on the actual act of flag burning.

Justices Warren, Black, and For-

tas, dissented saying that the de-

fendant was convicted for the act

rather than the words, and that

such a conviction was constitu-

tional. Justice White dissented

on the grounds that the accused

was not convicted for speech

alone, and that the judgment

should be upheld even if tke con-

viction was for constituticnally-

protected speech together with

flag burning.

In Watts v. United States, the

Court in an unsigned opinion re-

versed the conviction of a youth

under a federal statute making it

a felony to threaten the life of -

the President. At a public rally,

the young man stated his cesist-

ance to the draft and said that

"if they ever make me cairy a

rifle the first man I want io get

in my sights is LPB. They are

not going to make me kill my

black brothers." Predictably the

Court held that the statute on

ACLU NEWS

SEPTEMBER, 1969

Page 4

its face was constitutional, but

that the circumstances of this

case did not permit a conviction

consistent with the First Amend-

ment. Both the defendant and

' the crowd had laughed after the

defendant's statement, Consider-

ing this reaction, the context of

the speech, and the "expressly

conditional nature of the state-

ment," the Court viewec the

speech as merely "a kind of very

crude offensive method of stating

a political opposition to the

President." Concurring, Justice

Douglas traced the history of

similar statutes and stated that

the present statute's oppressive

effect was the same as that cre-

ated by the Alien and Sedition

laws, Justice White dissented

without opinion, Justice Stewart

stated that he would deny the

defendant's Petition for review,

and Justices Fortas and Harlan

dissented on the ground that the

court should not have ruled on

the issue without hearing oral

argument.

Protest Marches

Convictions resulting fron. pro-

test marches were reversed in

two cases. In Shuttlesworth v.

Birmingham, the defendant was

convicted of violating an ordi-

nance which forbade participa-

tion in a demonstration without

a permit. The ordinance author-

ized the City to refuse permits

for reasons of "public welfare,

peace, safety, health, decency,

good order, morals or corveni-

ence." Justice Stewart for six

members of the Court held that

the ordinance was unconstitu-

tional on its face since it sub-

jected the exercise of First

Amendment freedoms to the

prior restraint of a license with-

out valid and narrowly drawn

standards. The Alabama Supreme

Court had severly narrowed the

statute by interpretation, but the

U.S. Supreme Court nevertieless

reversed the conviction saying

that the Alabama Supreme

Court's 1967 decision could not

"restore constitutional valicity to

a conviction that occurred in 1963

under the ordinance as it was

written." It held furthermore

that even if the Alabama Court's

judicial narrowing of the statute

were viewed as preserving the

constitutionality of the statute on

its face, it could in no way be

constitutionally applied to Mr.

Shuttlesworth. The City had made

it clear that under no circum-

stances would the defendant and

his group be permitted to demon-

strate, even if a time and place

were selected that would minim-

ize traffic problems. The Court

_ said that "surrounding relevant

circumstances" could not be ig-

nored. Concurring separately,

Justice Harlan concerned himself

with the question of `whether

the Fourteenth Amendment ever

bars the state from punishing a

citizen for marching without a

permit which could have been

procured if ail available reme-

dies had been pursued." The ma-

jority opinion, he stated, seemed

to indicate that a citizen is en-

titled to rely on the statutory con-

struction adopted by ``the state of-

ficials who are on the front line,

administering the permit scheme.

If these officials construe a vague

statute unconstitutionaily, the

citizen may take them at their

word, and act on the assumption

that the statute is void." Justice

Harlan felt that "the right to ig-

nore a permit requirement should,

in my view, be made to turn on

something more substantial than

a minor official's view of his au-

thority under the governing

statute." Justice Black concurred

with the majority but wrote no

separate opinion.

The other case was Gregory v.

Chicago, which reversed tke dis-

orderly conduct conviction of

Dick Gregory. Chief Justice War-

ren, speaking for six Justices,

noted first that "there is no evi-

dence in this record that peti-

tioners' conduct was disorderly":

thus the convictions were ``so to-

tally devoid of evidentiary sup-

port" as to violate due process of

law. He noted ilso that the IIli-

nois Supreme Court's opinion

suggested "that petitioners were

convicted not fer the manner in

which they conducted their

march but rather for their re-

fusal to disperse when requested

to do so by Chicago police";

hence the petitioners were, in ef-

fect, convicted fer a charge which

was never made. A third inde-

pendent ground for reversal was

the fact that "the trial judge's

charge permitted the jury tv con-

vict for acts clearly entitled to

First Amendment protection' in

violation of Stromberg v. Califor-

nia (1931). There was no dis-

sents, but Justices Black and

Douglas joined in a separate con-

curring opinion which stressed:

"This we think is a highly im-

portant case which requires more

detailed consideration thaa the

Court's opinion gives it." They

deplored the vagueness and over-

breadth of the Chicago disorder-

ly conduct ordinance, and called

for narrowly drawn laws in this

area.

Obscenity

Stanley v. Georgia was a land-

tionally valid reasons to regulate

their speech, students are enti- (c)

led to freedom of expression of

their views." The Court repeated-

ly made clear that the principal

"Constitutionally valid reason" it

had in mind was disruption or

interference with schocl activi-

ties and that the action cf the

pupils in this case gave no cause

for reasonable fear of such dan-

gers. The Court also noted that

the particular symbol of black

armbands was singled out for

prohibition; that the prohibition

did not extend to any and all

political or controversial symbols.

Justice Black dissented, foresee-

ing calamitous results. "If the

time has come," he said, `when

pupils of state-supported schools,

kindergartens, grammar schools

or high schools can defy and

flaunt orders of school officials

to keep their minds on their own

schoo] work, it is the beginning

of a new revolutionary era of

mark obscenity case, Speaking

for six Justices, Mr. Justice Mar-

shall held unconstitutional a

Georgia statute outlawing know-

ing possession of obscene matter.

"Tf the First Amendment means

anything," the Court said, "`it

means that a state has no busi-

ness telling a man, sitting alone

in his own house, what books he

may read and what films he may

watch. Our whole Constitutional

heritage rebels at the thought of

giving the government the power

to control men's minds." How-

ever, the Court warned that

"what We have said in no way

infringes upon the power of...

government to make possession

of other items, such as narcotics,

firearms, or stolen goods, a

crime." The Court said nothing

about whether showing obscene

tilms to friends or relatives could

constitutionally be made a crime.

Selling or distributing obscene

matter (rather than merely pos-

sessing it) can still be constitu-

tionally punished when the re-

quirements of Roth v. United

States and other prior cases are

met. Justice Black concurred sep-

`arately, citing previous opinions

of his, Justices Stewart, Brennan

and White concurred in a sepa-

rate opinion stating that the case

should be decided on the issue

of the seizure of the films, which

they viewed as violation of the

Fourth Amendment.

Student Rights

In Tinker v. Des Moines Inde-

pendent Community Schoo' Dis-

trict, the Court held that stu-

dents in public elementary and

secondary schools are entitled to

the First Amendment guarantee

of free speech. In Tinker, three

students, 12, 15, and 16 years old,

wore black armbands to school

to dramatize their objections to

the Vietnam War. They were

immediately suspended ana told

they could not return to school

until they abandoned their arm-

bands, Justice Fortas, for seven

Justices, recognized the armband

as a form of "symbolic speech"

and held that "in the absence of

a specific showing of Constitu-

Review of

_ Significant

| U.S. Supreme

Court Decisions

1968 -

By KOREY MANDEL

ACLU Summer Fellow 1969 - Third Year Student

University of California Law Schocl

(Boalt Hall)

1969

permissiveness in this country

fostered by the judiciary." Jus-

tice Harlan also dissented, sepa-

rately.

While important, the Tinker

decision does not necessarily

point the way to revolutionary

reform in the field of student

rights. The majority opinion

noted that "the problem present-

ed by the present case does not

relate to regulations. of the

length of skirts or the type of

clothing, to hair style or deport-

ment." Indeed, the Court refused

to review two cases last term

which sought to establish the

right of male high school stu-

dents to wear hair longer than

many adults seem to like. On the

other hand, the thrust of the de-

cision, and its premises, suggest

tha tthe Court will soon have to

decide the questions it avoided.

Academic Freedom

About 50 years late, the Court

held in Epperson vy, Arkansas

that a state statute prohibiting

the teaching of the theory of evo-

lution violates the establisnment

clause and the free exercise of

religion clause of the First

Amendment. The Court struck

down an Arkarsas statute sub-

stantially the same as the one

involved in the world famous

Scopes "monkey trial," the case

that first brought the ACLU to

public attention,

Injunctions Against

Demonstrations

In Carroll v. President and

Commissioners of Princess Anne

County, Maryand officiais se-

cured a state court injunction,

without notice or hearing, forbid-

ding for 10 days any public ral-

lies by the National States Rights

Party, a white supremacist or-

ganization. The officials claimed

that the rally would inciude such

inflammatory speeches against

Blacks and Jews that it would

endanger the community. As a_

result, the scheduled rally was

not held. For the Court, Justice

Fortas held that the case was not

unreviewable on the ground of

"mootness" merely because the

10-day order had expired, be-

cause "the underlying question

persists and is agitated by the

continuing activities and program

of petitioners: whether, by what

processes, and to what extent the

authorities of the local govern-

ments may restrict petitioners in

their rallies and public meet-

ings." The Court refused, how-

ever, to answer the quecentstion

whether the authorities had the

power to prohibit the assembly

in spite of the petitioners' claim

that the injunction was an un-

constitutional `prior restraint'

on speech. The Court held in-

stead on the much narrower

ground that there was a `basic

infirmity in the procedure by

which it was obtained." Such an

injunction can be granted, the

Court said, only after the group

is given notice of the proposed

injunction and also an opportu-

nity to appear in court in order

to challenge its issuance, An or-

der without notice to the other

side may sometimes be legzal, the

Court noted, `but there is no

place within the area of basic

freedoms guaranteed by the First

Amendment -for such orders

where no showing is made that

it is impossible to serve or to

notify the opposing parties and

to give them an opportunity to

participate."

Television and Radio

In Red Lion Broadcasting Com-

pany v. Federal] Communications

Commission, the Court bolstered

the "fairness doctrine" with re-

spect to television and radio

broadcasting. The FCC fairness

rule requires radio and television

broadcasters to present different

points of view about controver-

sial public issues. The radio and

television industry had claimed

the fairness doctrine violated its

right to freedom of speech and

press. The Court rejected those

claims, holding that the public's

First Amendment right tc hear

different sides of public issues

constituted a paramount interest:

"Because of the scarcity of radio

frequencies," the Court said "the

Government is permitted to put

restraints on licensees in favor of

others whose views should be ex-

pressed on this unique medium." -

-Continued on Page 3

The first right of @ citizen

Is the right ~

To be responsible

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Patron Membership ee a ae

Sustaining Membership

Business and Professional Membership .............

Family Membership

Annual, Membership ..... 6... 5. es 6 we ee

Student Membership

ooeese eee 807228 8 2 e006 6 oe

JOIN TODAY

QE 181

eoeeceereeoeveve eee eee (c) o

25

1S

10

esceeevevee eevee eee eee 2 6 8 (c) 8 and (c) OO

3

ACLU News Subseription ...... 0.0.02. c ence ces POU

Contributions are deductible for income tax purposes

NAME .... 0.5.0.

ADDRESS and ZIP CODE ....

303 Market Street

eeeeceesreroeersx0e eee

oeeeereeoe eee

TELEPHONE NUMBER ......... cate

San Francisco, 94105

All contributions tax deductible.

eecereseeeeo Fs eeene eee og

eoeeeseee eee ees e208

... AMT. ENCLOSED....

cove eg