vol. 36, no. 11

A Publication of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Volume XXXVI

San Francisco, December, 1971

No. 11

Soledad Brothers

Called "Illegal"

The ACLU-NC has petitioned the

California Court of Appeal to void the

Security Order of Judge S. Lee Vavuris in

the ``Soledad Brothers'' Trial of Fleeta

- Drumgo and John Clutchette.

Acting on this order, the Sheriff and

Police Departments have required all

those attending the trial to submit to a

long list of security procedures, including

being photographed with their identifying

seat_number. As Paul Halvonik points

out, `"Requiring everyone, without

cause, to submit to mug shots as a price

for attendance works an impermissible

chilling effect on the right to public trial,

guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to

the Constitution.''

Degrading Skin Searches

In addition, women must submit to a

further indignity - removal of all clothing

for search, including panties, brassieres

and sanitary napkins, in an area not even

protected from view of other women

waiting to be stripped or male courtroom

guards. Since the Fourth Amendment to

the Constitution prohibits either searches

or arrests without `` probable cause'', the

MARIE CHAPMAN

`Am I the criminal ?''

Trial Security procedures was made to

an extremely well-attended news

ACLU-NC feels this procedure is clearly a

violation of civil liberties. Halvonik states,

`Surely things have not gotten to the

point where the exercise of the con-

stitutional right to attend a public trial is a

"suspect" activity, empowering the state

to conduct degrading skin searches. "'

The three women the ACLU-NC is

representing in this case tell of the

SUZAN FINE

``Men aren't stripped''

Trial Security -

and "Degrading"

The case against the Solidad Brothers conference by ACLU-NC Legal

Director Paul Halvonik and the three

petitioners.

harassments they have experienced in

attending the trial.

Suzan Fine, a twenty-eight-year old San

Franciscan, was experiencing menstrual

cramps. Her sanitary napkin was removed

and a hot-water bottle taken from her. The-

guards refused to return the bottle during

a mid-morning recess unless she promised

Continued on Page 2

~ AGNES McFADDIN

`Embarrassed'

ACLU-NC Moves to Halt

Draft in Class Action

The ACLU-NC has filed action in the

U.S. District Court to void all inductions

into the U.S. Military since June 30,

1971, and to stop further inductions until

December 28.

Basis for the challenge is a section of the

1971 Military Selective Service Act which

prohibits involuntary induction until 90

days after enactment. The action is being

taken on behalf of Frank M. Valdez, who

was ordered to report for induction on

October 27, and on behalf of all other men

so ordered since June 30.

`Unlawful inductions'

ACLU cooperating attorney Stan

Friedman states, ``This action will effect

_ thousands of registrants throughout the

country, many of whom have already been

unlawfully inducted into military~ ser-

vice.' He goes on to explain, ``The

objective of this section is as valid today as

- it was when first included in the 1948

Draft Act, by a government reluctant to

. use an involuntary draft statute to procure

military manpower. The 90 days is a

"grace period' to spur the Service to

encourage and stimulate voluntary 0x00B0

enlistments to meet manpower needs."'

Friedman additionally explained,

"Another important purpose that is

served by the 90-day moratorium is to

allow young men time to prepare. The

final passage of the 1971 Act came after

many months of uncertainty about its

passage, which placed young men in a

state of limbo. In addition, it contains (c)

substantial procedural changes requiring

some time for evaluation by those af-

fected."'

TRO Requested

The ACLU-NC has requested a

temporary restraining order which would

prohibit the U.S. Miliatary from at-

tempting to induct Valdez or any of the

registrants subject to induction between

June 30 and December 28, 1971.

The ACLU has been involved in court

before with the Selective Service Act,

primarily in challenges to the con-

stitutionality of a `Peace-time' Draft.

BULLETIN

A temporary restraining order has

been granted in a Southern California -

class action suit challenging the draft

for its failure to observe the 90-day

induction moratorium period

FREE SPEECH VIOLATIONS TAKE MANY FORMS

Pre-trial Gag Rule

Called Unconstitutional

In a petition filed with the U.S. Supreme

Court the constitutionality of a pre-trial

publicity gag-rule, is challenged by the

American Civil Liberties Union of

Northern California.

The case - Hamilton vs. California -

- concerns an order by Judge George Brunn

of the Berkeley-Albany Judicial District

that prohibited any public discussion by all

parties in a criminal trial arising from a

1966 sit-in demonstration on the Berkeley

campus of the University of California.

Steven Hamilton, one of the defendants,

was cited for contempt and later sentenced

to forty days in jail because he issued a

statement to the press making the

following points:

"The gagrule comes after the

University, Sacramento, and

powerful interests in the State have

already prejudiced people against us.

We have been publicly branded a

small group of outside agitators who

planned in advance and then

provoked the events which

culminated in the student strike. If

Continued on page 3

ACLU-NC Enters Franklin

Case at Stanford -

The ACLU-NC urged in a ``Friend-of-

the-Court'' brief to Stanford University

that proper standards of free speech and

fair warning be observed in reaching a

decision on the firing or reinstating of

Professor H. Bruce Franklin.

The ACLU-NC is not taking the side of

either the University or Franklin, but is

speaking to several civil liberties. issues

raised by disruptive campus events which

lead to charges of academic mis-conduct

against Franklin. These incidents involve

heckling which stopped a speech by Henry

Cabot Lodge last January 11 and-a series of

disruptions on February 10 at a

demonstration and at a rally.

Heckling is free speech?

Concerning the Lodge speech, the

ACLU-NC states that the issue turns on

whether the facts prove that Franklin was

merely engaged in heckling - a free

speech right guaranteed by the Con-

stitution - or whether he intentionally

engaged in concerted activity designed to

silence Lodge. The latter would be a

violation of Lodge's freedom of speech for

_ Continued on page 4

Abortion Information Code

Called Unconstitutional

The fight against the California law

prohibiting distribution of information

regarding abortions has reached the

California Court of Appeal, through a

brief filed yesterday by the ACLU-NC.

The ACLU-NC's client, Richard W.

Orser, has been convicted of violating

Business and Professions Code Section

601, which makes it a crime to: ``write,

compose or publish any notice or ad-

vertisement of any medicine or means for

producing or facilitating a miscarriage or

- abortion.'' Orser's alleged criminal act

was to author a section of the Mid-

Peninsula Free University catalogue

offering to furnish information concerning

competent physicians to terminate un-

wanted pregnancies.

Paul Halvonik explains that the Code is

a direct limitation on the First Amend-

ment rights of expression of opinion and

the exchange of information. He points

out that, `"The catalogue notice may deal

with a topic some find revolting, un-

pleasant or offensive. But the First

Amendment bars the state from inhibiting

Continued on page 2

Berkeley Sign Ordinance

Is Speech Restraint

The ACLU-NC won a partial victory

when the Alameda County Superior Court '

tuled certain provisions of the Berkeley

Sign Ordinance unconstitutional. But it

has worked up to the U.S. District Court -

with a writ of habeas corpus in the attempt

to make that victory complete.

The two cases involve William Ehlert

and Mary Winchester, who were con-

victed of posting signs on utility poles.

While the Berkeley ordinance prohibits

posting signs in such public places, it

allows the City Manager to grant special

permits for posting where the material

"`relates to a matter of general public

interest''.

Constitutionally infirm

The court agreed with the ACLU-NC

contention that, `"`any procedure which

allows licensing oificials wide or un-.

bounded discretion in granting or denying

permits is constitutionally infirm because

it permits them to base their deter-

mination on the content of the ideas

sought to be expressed.'' However, he

was not willing to void the entire or-

Continued on page 2

Complaint Bureau

Off and Running

The response, by volunteers, to the

announcement that a Complaint Referral

Desk would be established at the ACLU

has been excellent. The current "`staff'' of

eight has been responding to the incredible

variety of inquiries brought by people who

come directly to the office, over the

phone, or via the mail. The desk is

maintained 5 days a week from the hours

of 10-4. However, to make this a truly

_ effective part of the ACLU, its director

Fran Strauss would like to hear from other

members who are willing to give one or

two days a week to the project.

Complaint Bureau's

Fran Strauss,

volunteer director

Supreme Court's Recent

Rights Record Criticized

By Associated Press

The American Jewish Congress has

charged that the 1970-71 U.S. Supreme

Court set a record for issuing a majority of

unfavorable decisions in civil rights and

civil liberties cases.

The contention of the AJC was based

on annual studies, made by its Com-

mission on Law and Social Action since

1957, which show that the 1970-71 court

as a whole voted favorably in such cases on

only 40 of 82 occasions.

More Unfavorable Decisions

`*This marked the first time since the

American Jewish Congress began to

analyze the high court's voting record in

1957 that there were more unfavorable

than favorable decisions in civil rights and

civil liberties cases,' the report stated.

The report also contended that

President Nixon's two appointees, Chief

Justice Warren Burger and Associate

Justice Harry Blackmun, had the court's

most conservative voting records for the

term, by voting favorably in such cases

-only 31 out of 82 times.

Douglas Rates Highest -

It rated Justice William O. Douglas.

highest in favorable voting on civil

liberties and civil rights, with only six

unfavorable votes out of 76.

`The records of Justices Blackmun and

Burger ``confirm the general view that

appointments by President Nixon are

likely to make the court less receptive to

broad interpretations of constitutional

freedom,'' Joseph B. Robison, director of

the AJC study group, said.

The report also showed, the AJC said,

that the number of civil rights and liberties

cases decided by the 1970-71 court - 82

in all - was higher than in any ieee

year of the studies.

""For the most part,'' the study con-

cluded, ``the court neither undid earlier

libertarian decisions nor advanced to new

ground. Thus the immediate impact of the

first two Nixon appointments seems to

have been to halt the trend of the previous

decade toward enlarging individual

rights."'

EDITOR'S NOTE: During the last several

years of the Warren Court, the ACLU won

about 80 percent of its Supreme Court

cases. But in the 1970-71 term, the ACLU

won only some 50 percent.

Page 2 DEC. 1971

ACLU NEWS

Comittee for Open Media

KPIX-TV License Challenged

The Committee for Open Media, a

standing committee of the Santa Clara

Valley ACLU, is challenging the

broadcast license of KPIX-TV. They have

presented papers to the FCC to demon-

strate that KPIX has failed to serve the

most vital need of a democratic society -

the need for free speech and public debate.

COM alledges that the public service of

KPIX fails specifically in 3 ways:

1. KPIX has not, provided op-

portunities for free speech. That is, it

has not provided ways for community

groups to present messages on

controversial issues prepared by

themselves.

2. KPIX has failed to provide

adequate audience-exposure for

messages on public issues, airing

them in off-viewing hours when

audiences are much smaller than at

peak viewing time.

3. KPIX has failed to give access

to the real diversity of views found in .

the Bay Area, with 300 groups listed

who have been denied access to

KPIX.

More C.0.M:

Public Offered Free Air-time

Three San Francisco Bay-area TV

stations have agreed to televise free and

unedited messages from diverse com-

munity groups during an experimental 3-

month period starting this January 10.

This offer by KGO-TV, KTVU and

KNTV is the result of negotiations over

the past several months by the Committee

for Open Media to secure this kind of

public access to the broadcast media. The

spots available can be up to 50 seconds

long, or about 100 words. They will be

taped by the stations, at their expense,

using a spokesman from the group.

Groups are free to present any point of

view within the usual limits of obscenity

and libel, with the stations agreeing not to

refuse to carry a message simply because it

is ``controversial.''

Anyone interested can contact the

stations directly, or one of the COM co-

ordinators listed below.

-KGO-TV, Gordon. Waldeer, 277

Golden Gate Ave., SF, 863-0077

-KNTV, Stew Park, 645 Park Ave.,

San Jose, 285-1111

-KIVU, lan Zellick, No. | Jack

London Sq., Oakland, 834-2000

-COM, Jeff Ullman, Berkeley, 845,

1476

-COM, Rob Harding, San Jose, 374-

3070

- -COM, Patrick McGuire, Stanford,

328-1372

-COM, Debbie Majteles, Berkeley,

848-2638

Letters to the Editor

Restraint of Press Booklets

Available

The ACLU-NC has ordered a quantity

of copies for Fred Powledge's new 50-

page booklet on ``The Engineering of

Restraint: The Nixon Administration

and The Press.'' These are available for

those wanting an in-depth look at the

status of Free Press under the present

federal government at $1.00 a copy.

Contact Bill Kane at ACLU-NC

headquarters.

Continued

Berkeley "cvive2 ,

dinance or reverse the convistion of the

two appellants.

The ACLU-NC position is that, since

the conviction is based on law inconsistent -

with the First Amendment, the con-

viction must be vacated. Following refusal

to hear the case by both the California

Court of Appeal and the California

Supreme Court, it is being taken to the

US. District Court.

Cooperating attorney on the cases is

- Demetrios P. Agretelis .

More Reaction to NEW News

Dear Mr. Kane:

Whew! To judge by the letters to the

editor in the current News, you really

have some soreheads within your

readership. I think you're doing a fine job.

Don't let the bastards get you down.

-Stephen McNamara

San Rafael, Calif.

Dear Bill,

Have just read your October November

issue with profit and interest. Which is

more than I can say for the sheet put out

by your predecessor with its long legal

reports and exceedingly dull format. ~

Some of the letters to the editor bear out

a contention I've had about the Bay area

affiliate: it must have the biggest

collection of cantankerous bastards in the

. Union.

During the hassle over the anti-war

resolution in the paper I could hardly

believe the number of members who quit

over this one disagreement.

We have a

freewheeling gang up here too but nobody

quit over our unanimous endorsement of

the National Board position.

I trust that the bitter complainers are (c)

outnumbered by members who are getting

a balanced view of what the affiliate is

about, in a readable format.

We moved from the turgid to the

brightly balanced a couple of years ago and

have got nothing but praise (even from

journalists) ever since. Hang in there!

And Jay deserves a pat on the back for

breaking with the past, the first of many

such innovative acts which I am sure will

vastly improve the affiliate.

-Lyle Mercer

Seattle, Washington

Dear Mr. Kane:

I liked the old format better.

Also, Dan Luten is always right.

-John Jencks

Berkeley, California

Correlation and Capital Punishment

Dear Sir:

I would appreciate it if you would

publish this letter in support of the

position taken by Mr. Luten in the Oc-

tober-November issue. Your so-called

correlation of capital punishment and

murder rate, which appeared in a previous

issue was so naive that no intelligent

person could accept it as evidence.

Clearly, it is quite possible that in states

where murder rates are low, it has been

deemed feasible, because the rates are low,

to abolish capital punishment.

-William McKillop

Orinda, California

To William Kane:

You might be interested in the enclosd

document, re Mr. Luten's letter in the

ACLU News, No. 10. I think he is poorly

informed, clever but not coherent.

-Christian Bay

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Attachment (summarized):

Dr. Thorsten Sellin's far ranging,

meticulous research on the consequences

of abolishing the death penalty, or of re-

instituting it, in a variety of jurisdictions

and at various times, added up to the

conclusion that the death penalty has no

demonstrable deterrent effect, nor any

demonstrable crime-provoking effect.

Its results do show that, statistically

speaking, whatever deterrent effect the

death penalty may have must be offset by

other factors, if some potential murderers

are deterred, then others are brutalized, to

a roughly equivalent extent. Most of us

(are) alienated by added evidence of

cynical hypocracy on the part of the state,

if it professes to teach respect for human

~ lives while it still is itself involved in

business of killing,

without necessity.

There is a. great preponderance of

evidence, in the criminological literature

till now, to the effect that, statistically

speaking, the death penalty serves no-

over-all crime-deterring function. |

-Christian Bay

deliberately and

Abortion 0x00A7omsce

the flow of information and the expression

of ideas, whether considered offensive by

some people .or not.''

Halvonik, emphazing the un-

constitutionality of Code Section 601's

broad restraint on expression, notes that it

prohibits :

-A medical school professor from passing .

out information to a doctor called on to.

perform a legal abortion in California;

-A druggist or pharmaceutical house from

providing doctors with written in-

formation about recent advances in

medications to facilitate an abortion.

Finally, the brief notes that only written

communications are excluded, giving this

form of expression less constitutional

protection than oral communication, a

violation of the First and Fourteenth.

Amendment `"`equal protection'' right.

Orser's is the second San Mateo County

case challenging the ordinance. The other

case involves legalized-abortion crusaders

Rowena Gurner and Patricia Maginnis.

The Court of Appeal overturned their

conviction on technical grounds; it is now

pending before Superior Court Judge W.

Howard Hartley.

Continue.

Soledad jrom pace

to leave the building. When it was

returned, at the end of the day the tote bag

containing it had been slashed.

`"The men don't have to go through

skin searches women do,'' Miss Fine said.

They just get pat searches of their

clothing.''

Agnes McFaddin, fifty-four, explained

that, after the matron asked her to remove

both her pantyhose and her panties, she

was so embarrassed she wasn't sure she

- would be able to return to the trial another

day.

Sixty-three-year-old Rate Chapman

complained at having her photograph

taken, ``Why are you taking our

photographs? Am I the criminal?'' The

policeman taking the photo replied,

`*You're right. You are the criminal.''

Halvonik explains, ``There are few

people who will attend a trial when they

are forced into a strip-search and when

they accumulate what amounts to a

criminal record, replete with photographs

and identifying numbers. This ``Security

Order'' must be rescinded so the people of

San Francisco can exercise their right to

attend a public trial free of unwarranted

surveillance and illegal searches and

seuzures.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NEWS :

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Howard Jewel, Chairman of the Board

Jay Miller, Executive Director

William Kane, Editor and Public Information Director

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

Membership $10 and up of which $2.50 is the annual subscription fee ey aclu

News.

Board Approves 1972 Budget

In a series of moves at its October and

November meetings, the ACLU-NC

Board of Directors paved the way for the

full financial merger with the National

ACLU, and adopted a minimal budget of

$196,500 for 1972: Board actions were:

1. The Board established the

ACLU of Northern California as

an affiliate of the National ACLU

New York Corporation registered

to catry on its operation in

California, as the membership

organization which would not be

tax deductible, (see article on this

page for full details on merger).

2. The Board changed the name

of the present ACLU-NC, a

California Corporation, to the

ACLU Foundation of Northern

California, Inc.. This will be the

tax deductible entity affiliated

with the membership organ-

ization but governed separately.

3. The Board changed the fiscal

year from November 1 to October

31, to January 1 to December 31,

beginning in 1972.

4. It adopted a minimum

combined budget for ACLU-NC

and the Foundation of $196,450

for 1972. This figure is exclusive

of special projects, such as the

death penalty and the high school

student project, for which special

funding is being sought.

`This minimum budget anticipates the

same level of activity as carried on in

1971, allowing only for a five percent staff

salary increase and the establishment of

staff health and life insurance. Most of the

additional $36,000 over the 1971 budget

of $160,000 will be needed to com-

puterize the membership list and for

increased costs of printing and mailing the

NEWS, renewal letters, etc. to service

5,000 additional members who have

heretofore belonged to the National

~ ACLU, but now goon the ACLU-NC list.

The Budget also allocates $10,000 to

recruit 2,000 new members in 1972.

Another $4,000 was anticipated as our

share of the expenses of the 1972

National Biennial ACLU Conference.

Renewal Expected

It is expected that the ACLU-NC will

renew 11,500 members for a gross

membership income of $230,000 of

which the National ACLU share will be

$81,000 and Northern California share

$149,000. $22,000 in income is an-

ticipated from the 2,000 new members

(unshared with National), $2,000 in

income from the Speaker's Bureau,

literature sales and miscellaneous con-

tributions, for a total of $173,000. It is

planned that the additional $23,450 will

be raised by the ACLU-NC Foundation

from substantial contributors and a

Pre-trial Gag

Continued from page 1

this is the only view that the public is

allowed to hear, how could a jury

help but be prejudiced? We must give

the people of the State of California

our view of the events.''

Hamilton violated the court's order on

advise of counsel for the purpose of

challenging its constitutionality regarding

the First and Fourteenth Amendments to

the U.S. Constitution.

Hamilton's dawyer Paul Halvonik

points out: ``The First Amendment _

protects our most cherished freedom. We

have a profound national commitment to

the principle that debate on public issues

should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-

open. Any court order inhibiting the

exercise of freedom of speech should

contain specific findings explaining its

necessity, and should be narrowly drawn

to insure that free expression is inhibited

only to the extent required for elimination

of the substantive evil that has inspired the

order. The court order in this case does

not meet even these minimal standards.''

Benefit. Even this minimal budget an-

ticipates a 15 percent increase in mem-

bership giving for 1972,

Alternate Budget

The Board also looked with favor on an

alternate budget of $221,550 which

reflected a substantial increase in

legislative and legal activity, which was

also presented by the Budget and Finance

Committee. This budget would add

another lawyer, who would be stationed in

Sacramento, to carry out full-time

legislative activity, with some litigation

action in the Sacramento area. It would

also allow our present part-time

legislative representastive, Charles

Marson, to work full-time on litigation,

assisting Legal Director Paul Halvonik.

This would provide for the staff back-up

needed to develop a greatly increased corps

of volunteer attorneys, as well as a 30

percent increase in legislative expenses

and a 50 percent increase in legal ex-

penses.

The alternate budget also allows for

$2,000 to help support the efforts of

Chapters.

The Board agreed to review the

alternate budget in December and

January, to see if contributions to the

Foundation and/or a major fund-raising

function could be successfully put together

with an expectation of raising enough

income to meet the additional ex-

-penditures in the alternate budget.

Finally the Board voted to allow the

ACLU-NC Chapters to keep 100 percent

of the contributions of any new members

that they recruited, to help finance their

activities. New member envelopes with

_ each Chapter's code are in the process of

being printed.

Organizing Luncheon Held for

Coalition to End Death Penalty

Professor Amsterdam in discussion

following speech at luncheon by

Coalition to End the Death Penalty.

Amsterdam

Sample selection of the 90+ crowd that turned out to hear Professor ;

Over 90 people heard a presentation of

current legal, legislative and public in-

formation strategies for ending the death

penalty at a luncheon at A. Sabella's

Restaurant on November 18.

Main speaker was Professor Anthony

Amsterdam, chief counsel in two of the

four death penalty cases now before the

U.S. Supreme Court. He outlined the

reasons for his belief that "`putting a stop,

once and for all, to capital punishment is

the most important social issue now

_ available to us that is `do-able'. There is a

substantial chance for success if a

dedicated group of people band together. If

we fail, the blood bath that would follow is

unthinkable. In one year the United States

government would kill as many people as

all the other counties of the world com-

bined, both those we called civilized and

those we call barbaric.''

Nearly 20 organizations have now

formally joined the Coalition and many

more have committed, awaiting only the

final approval by appropriate boards.

Implications of the Merger of ACLU and ACLU-NC.

By Jay A. Miller

On December 1, 1971, the merger of

the National ACLU and the ACLU of

Northern California was completed. The

8,000 members which belong to the

Northern California affiliate and the

6,000 Northern Californians which

belong to the National ACLU, are now on

one integrated membership list totaling

12,500. (There is a 1,500 member

overlap between the two membership lists

- that is persons who belong to both the

National and local.)

All members will now receive both

newsletters, the Northern California

NEWS and the National CIVIL

LIBERTIES. All members will be

counted for purposes of voting in a

National referendum, and for deciding on

the number of delegates that the Northern

California ACLU is entitled to for the

National Biennial Conference, and also for

Affiliate and Chapter elections.

The Northern California affiliate will

continue to maintain its independence of

thought and action. We need not be bound

by all positions taken by the National

ACLU and may take positions and actions

on matters that we consider of civil

liberties importance but the National does

not.

Membership Contributions

Under the merger there will be a

sharing of membership contributions,

beginning with the 1972 renewal

campaign. Previously the Northern

California affiliate kept 100 percent of the

contributions of its 8,000 members, and

the National ACLU kept 100 percent of

the monies from its 6,000 members. Now

renewal monies will be shared, with 60

percent remaining in Northern California

and 40 percent remitted to the National

office for civil liberties work throughout

the country.

Tax Deductibility?

For several years members who made

contributions to the Northern California

affiliate had the advantage of tax deduc-

tibility while the National ACLU and its

other affiliates were not tax deductible. In

contemplating the merger of the two

organizations much was made of the loss

to the ACLU-NC members of that tax

deductibility. One would expect that,

because of this advantage, Northern

California contributors to the ACLU-NC

would have the highest contribution rate

in the country. Curiously, just the reverse

has been true.

For instance, in 1970 Arizona had the

highest average contribution to ACLU of

almost $38 per member. The National

average of all members was $25.

_ Mississippi and Utah (both unstaffed

affiliates) had the lowest averages, at

approximately $17.50 per member.

Lowest; that is, with the exception of the

Northern California affiliate, which was

(would you believe) just over $17 per

member. Lest anyone think that Northern

Californians simply lack commitment to

civil liberties, it turns out that the

members residing in Northern California

who belonged to the National ACLU,

gave almost $23 per member without the

advantage of tax deductibility. (A Page 4

story shows average contribution for each

affiliate)

_ What this demonstrates is, that with a

few exceptions, tax. deductibility has

meant little or nothing to the Northern

California general membership. It is our

hope that we will be able to greatly in-

- crease membership giving. One way that

we hope to encourage this is by making it

easier to spread out a member's giving. In

the first membership mailing that you will

receive each year, you will have the option

of joining a pledge program. Those who

choose to take advantage of it will receive

quarterly or semi-annual reminders..

But There is a Way

For those who plan to make a sub-

stantial contribution - read on (there are

some members who now do so and we

hope that that number will grow con-

siderably).

By Board action we have now become

two organizations. One is the ACLU-NC,

a membership organization, which is an

affiliate of the National ACLU, a New

York Corporation registered to do

business in California. This is just like the

other 47 ACLU affiliates throughout the

country. The other is the ACLU-NC

Foundation, Inc., a tax deductible

`California corporation.

Contributions to the ACLU-NC_ (the

membership organization) will be used

for: an expanded legislative program; a

greatly expanded public information

program including a speakers bureau and

stepped up _ publicity; continued

publication of the ACLU NEWS; greater

affiliate support for Chapter organization

and programs; Maintenance of present

membership and recruitment of thousands

of new members; and support of National

civil liberties programs.

It is especially important that we greatly

strengthen our public information,

education and legislative programs, if we

are to meet the challenge of defending civil

liberties in the climate of a United States

Supreme Court increasingly un-

sympathetic to our message. More and

more we must combine our litigative

efforts with these other programs. Ad-

ditional details of these 1972 program

plans are contained in a brochure being

mailed to you with the renewal mailing.

The ACLU-NC Foundation, Inc.

The ACLU-NC Foundation, Inc. is

actually the old ACLU of Northern

California, with a slightly altered name. It

is still a California Corporation which

continues to enjoy tax deductibility since

its purpose and operation have no

changed. :

There is only one difference. It is no

longer a membership organization. To

receive the benefits of tax deductibility,

ACLU members and friends who wish to

Continued on page 4

DEC. 1971

acLtuNews Page 3

oN

News from the Chapters

Berkeley-Albany Chapter

Kunstler to Speak

on Prisoner Rights

at Rights Day Fete

The featured speaker at the Berkeley-

Albany Chapter's Bill of Rights Day

benefit is nationally-known lawyer

William Kunstler. He will be talking on

`*Prisoner Rights and Prison Wrongs" on

Friday, December 17, at 8:30 pm at

Pauley Ballroom in the Student Union at

the University of California at Berkeley.

_ Kunstler is known for his recent in-

volvement on the Citizens Negotiating

Committeee which tried to prevent a

violent end to the riots in the Attica State

Prison. Kunstler has represented many

clients whose names have become familiar

to the public - Father Groppi, H. Rap

Brown, Father Berrigan and the Chicago

8 at their conspiracy trial.

Also on the program with Kunstler are

Mimi Farina and Bill Foulke, folk singer

and guitarist. Admission is $3 general and

$2 for students. Tickets may be obtained

Franklin Case

Continued from page 1

which disciplinary action may be

warranted. On the other hand,

disciplining for merely _ unobstructive

heckling would be an improper violation of

Franklin's civil liberties.

Regarding Franklin's speeches at the

rally and his arguments with police at the

demonstration, the ACLU-NC feels these

are protected by the First Amendment.

They state, `"One has a constitutional

right to argue with a policeman about his

order to disperse and to urge others to

refuse to obey such an order, unless such

urging creates a clear and present danger

of serious bodily harm. As for Franklin's

speeches, they do not urge immediate or

violent action. They plainly take the form

of protected advocacy. Of course, if the

evidence establishes that Franklin actually

incited persons to immediate violence

against the police, then such incitement

could well constitute a clear and present

danger."'

An additional civil liberties issue af-

fecting all the university charges is one of

``Fair Warning.'' According to the

ACLU-NC, no person should be subject

to discipline for having engaged in con-

duct, unless clear rules are available to

him at the time he engaged in it which

proscribe that activity and spell out the.

penalty for infraction. ;

The ACLU cooperating attorney who

prepared the brief on the case is Alan M.

Dershowitz, a Harvard law _ school

professor, now at the Center for Advanced

Study of Behavorial Sciences at Stanford.

Page 4 DEC. 1971

ACLU NEWS

by writing ACLU-BA, P.O. Box 121,

Berkeley, 94794, or call Carolyn Cowan

at 525-2586.

Sacramento Valley Chapter

Chapter Protests

Free Speech Denial

The following letter was sent to Bernard

Hyink, President of Sacramento State

College by A.R. Gutowsky, Chairman of

the Sacramento Valley Chapter of the

ACLU-NC:

`*The Sacramento Valley Chapter of the

American Civil Liberties Union objects to

the denial of free speech at the time of

Professor William Shockley's appearance

at Sacramento State College.

Arenas for Ideas

Institutions of higher learning are

arenas in which all ideas, whatever their

merits, may be presented, challenged, and

analyzed. Without this freedom of ex-

pression and inquiry the pursuit of

knowledge and wisdom would die, and

only Truthspeak would remain. Freedom

of speech would be a meaningless phrase,

`simply an' expression of the opinions of

those who happen to be in power at the

time.

We are sympathetic with those who

object to speakers who might use a

platform devoted to free speech as a means

to spread racist propaganda, especially

when such views are disguised as

- scientifically valid. We can also sym-

pathize with those protesting Professor

Shockley's appearance who noted that the

Chancellor of the State College System

previously objected to spezkers who

support radical social change, yet is silent

now.

However, we who want a free society

must be as zealous in protecting the rights

of those with objectionable views as we are

in protecting our own. Otherwise, all our

constitutional rights to protest and dissent

and to speak our minds will quickly

disappear."' ,

Booklet Available on Death Penalty

The Coaltion to End the Death

Penalty has obtained several

thousand copies of an excellent new

70-page booklet by The Washing-

ton Research Project called: "The

Case Against Capital Punishment".

These are available for $1.00 each

by contacting the Coalition at 593'

Market St., Suite 227, San Fran-.

cisco, Calif. 94105.

Our, Membership Secretary has a

good idea: Why not give an ACLU

membership to your friends for

Christmas? Besides being a welcome

gift and helping your ACLU grow,

think how much less tired your feet

arte going to feel not having to fight

those holiday shopping crowds.

School Prayer Amendment

Defeated in Upset Victory

By ACLU National Legislative Staff

The defeat of the school prayer

amendment in the U.S. House was a

marvelous victory for the Bill of Rights.

The vote of 240 for, 162 against, was well

short of the two-thirds required to pass a

Constitutional amendment. Given such

an outcome, it seems reasonable to hope

we will not again have to face the time

consuming distraction of fighting that

particular battle.

The prayer lobby . spent six months

building its campaign. It lost in that

chamber of Congress where most ob-

servers thought it would win. Its

acquisition of 218 names on the discharge

petition gave it the strongest possible

psychological momentum.

We Began Unorganized

School prayer opponents, meanwhile,

began with an unorganized nucleus of

about 75 votes. Many thought the only

reason to make a strong fight in the House

was to narrow the loss enough to give

Senate opponents the strength to defeat it

there. ;

Given that setting, adding to it the

popular distortion of the real meaning of

the Supreme. Court's 1962-63 decisions

and the difficulty of `"`voting against

prayer,'' the bill was still defeated. It's

hard to think its proponents will ever

establish a better opportunity than the one

just past.

Still, Mrs. Ben Ruhlin and her Prayer

Merger

Continued from Page 3

make substantial contributions are en-

couraged to make them to the Foundation.

Contributions to the Foundation will

support most of our litigation efforts and

special projects. Some of these projects

have already been voted on by our Board of

. Directors. Some have even received seed-

money funding to get them going, such as

the Capital Punishment Project and The

High School Student Project. Others on

the drawing board or under consideration

for foundation funding are The Chiano

Project, The Prisoner Rights Project and

The Victimless Crime Project. Details on

these projects are contained in a brochure

enclosed in the renewal mailing now on its

way to each member.

The Foundtion will seek out a number

of contributors who are in a position to

become Patrons ($10,000 contribution),

Sponsors ($5,000 contyibtuion), or

Fellows ($1,000 contribution). Such

contributors can earmark their gifts for

programs or projects that most interest

them if they so choose. (While con-

tributions under $1,000 a year will

certainly not be turned away, earmarking

for special projects of such contributions.

will not be encouraged). Unearmarked

contributions are shared with the National

ACLU Foundation on the same 60-40

percentage basis as contributions to

ACLU-NC.

Foundation Funding Sought

Private foundations will also of course

be solicited and encouraged to fund special

projects or the general work of the ACLU-

NC Foundation.

~ Jt is hoped that by changing to these two

organizatons, we will be able to greatly

expand the work for civil liberties to

become more responsive to the civil

liberties problems throughout Northern

California. Until now our work has been -

largely reactive. As we gain strength we

hope to be able to reserve a good part of

our effort for affirmative litigation by

taking a look at our region and challenging

the worst civil liberties abuses, in ways

that will change patterns, eliminate those

abuses, and have a lasting effect.

Campaign Committee claim they are not

through. They say they will work to defeat

every Congressman who voted against

them. Time will tell if they really have the

spirit for such an effort, but please let us

know if you see any concrete moves in

your state.

Defeat was upset

The bill's defeat was an upset. It was

made possible by numerous late

developments, such as Carl Albert's

public prediction that it would lose, and

the last-minute opposition of the USS.

Catholic Conference. But nothing was -

more important than one fact: everywhere

we went in the final days, Congressmen

were suddenly receiving tides of mail

reversing the pro-prayer sentiment which

was all they'd heard from the beginning.

Many groups contributed to this

reversal. One of the strongest was the

ACLU. Affiliate response was fabulous. It

was a truly national effort, creating a

victory in which every affiliate shares, and

there is no way we can thank you enough

for your help.

Editors Note: The ACLUers in Northern

California played a very big role in this

victory. The following comparison of the

vote of our congressmen versus what was

expected shows the effect of your contact

to let them know where your stand. Not

one of our supporters switched, only one

fence sitter voted in favor of the amend-

ment, and two of the three expected to

vote for it were switched.Congratulations.

Expected Vote

McCloskey | For Against

Waldie For Against

Talcott For For

Clausen ? For

Johnson cent Against

Mailliard ? Against

Miller ? Against

Gubser ? No Vote

Moss Against Against

Burton Against Against

Dellums `Against Against

Edwards Against Against

McFail Against Against

Sisk Against Against

Computer Invasion -

of Privacy -

The first ``computer privacy'' suit has

been filed in San Francisco Superior Court

by the ACLU-NC. The ACLU's objective

is to prevent the State Department of

Social Welfare from disciplining em-

ployees who refuse to participate in

collecting confidential information about

welfare recipients for placement in

computer storage, without assurance of

limitations on access to this private data by

outside interests.

_ This landmark case is being handled by

ACLU-NC Staff Counsel Charles Marson,

for social workers Josephine Belmont and

Glenda Pawsey. They refused to expose to

public disclosure such private facts about

clients as alcoholism, sex offense or

mental illness, leading to their suspension

from work without pay.

Marson states, ``The State Department

of Social Welfare has displayed even more

than it usual insensitivity to the rights of

the people it serves, not to mention the

forcing of its employees to violate their

professional ethics. What the department

did is every bit as shocking as the massive

bed checks which the courts struck down a

few years ago. We are confident that such

a computer surveillance system, with all

its indignities and inhumanities, will not

be allowed to stand.'' .