vol. 44, no. 2 (March)

clu ne

Volume XLIX

March 1979

Number 2

Dangers of Con-Con

Resolutions before the California As-

sembly Ways and Means Committee

calling for a limited constitutional con-

vention failed February 22 by a three-

to-two margin. The failure of the reso-

lutions to clear the committee means

that, as of now, California does not be-

long to that roster of states calling for a

constitutional convention to limit the

federal budget.

The fight, however, may not be over.

Through parliamentary procedure,

two-thirds of the full Assembly can vote

the bills out of committee for considera-

tion on the floor. Governor Jerry Brown

may not have given up yet on his grab at

the brass ring.

If Brown's call is approved by the As-

sembly, California would join at least

29 other states which have recently

passed similar resolutions, bringing us

closer to the awesome possibility of the

nation's second constitutional conven-

tion.

That eventuality results from a care-

less rush to judgment on the part of -

- many state legislatures. Nineteen of the

first twenty-one states passed petitions

without benefit of public hearings or

WOE Unt

by Margaret Crosby,

ACLU Staff Counsel

-"Olsten Pays Pennies!'' was the

rallying cry of approximately 35 women

who demonstrated outside the

headquarters of Olsten Temporary

Services at 120 Montgomery Street in

~ San Francisco December 14.

Olsten went to Superior Court trying

to stop Women

assembly on the streets of San Fran-

cisco, claiming that they had blocked

the entrance to the building.

ACLU-NC attorney Margaret Crosby

and Equal Rights Advocates attorney

_ Nancy Davis rushed to court only hours

after W.O.E. learned of the lawsuit and

successfully defended against Olsten's

request for a temporary restraining

order which would have forced the

feminist picketers off the street. Crosby

and Davis argued 'for the right of the

feminist organization to publicize the

plight of temporary employees by

picketing. They also argued that Olsten

wanted the women off the sidewalks not

- because they were blocking traffic, but

because they found the content of the

women's protest too provocative and

embarrassing.

Olsten was targeted for the

demonstration because W.O.E. found

that `"`it is one of the worst temporary

services we surveyed .... We found

that they pay the lowest, offer no

benefits, and treat their temporaries

poorly," said Linda Benmour, a leader

Organized for

Employment (W.O.E.) from further.

committee reports. Some have passed

resolutions having spent less than six

minutes discussing the subject. In

Maryland and Texas, the majority lead-

ers didn't even know what the voting

was about until after the measure was

passed.

That same sort of negligent decision

making recently marked the California

Senate's passage of a resolution calling

for a constitutional convention with less

than two hours of committee hearings.

Only fourteen Senators chose to vote no.

The Assembly's 21-member Ways

and Means Committee held two full

days of public hearings on this complex

subject of amending the Constitution

through the uncharted convention

course on January 22 and February 15.

Because no one knows what a constitu-

tional convention is all about, the

committee invited constitutional schol-

ars, economists, and historians to the

state capitol to explain what they think

the consequences could be.

The ACLU of Northern Califernia

has carefully followed the debates and

has stepped forward in opposing the

current call for a convention. On Feb-

o Olsten

of W.O.E.'s Temporary Workers

Committee. ee

While the women picketed, Olsten

representatives agreed to meet later

with the women to discuss grievances.

_ When they revoked that offer, W.O.E.

demonstrated again at the Olsten

headquarters on December 21 to

W.O.E. members demonstrate at the

offices of Olsten Temporary Employ-.

ment Agency protesting low pay, no

benefits and unsatisfactory employment

policies. After reneging on a promise to

negotiate, Olsten sued W.O.E. for

trespassing.

publicize the corporation's refusal to

consider its demands. Olsten then went

to court, seeking an immediate halt to

the picketing and requesting over

$200,000 in damages. Se

Olsten charged that the women from

W.O.E. `"`invaded"' the office December

14 and obstructed the entrance of the

building. The suit also claims that

"during the entire confrontation which

lasted approximately one half hour,

continued on page 4

by Dorothy Ehrlich,

Executive Director

ACLU-NC

ruary 3, the Board of Directors passed a

resolution warning of the portentous

dangers to the Bill of Rights inherent in

a constitutional convention (see below).

1787/1979: PARALLELS

The constitutional convention of 1787

was originally called for a single pur-

pose: to resolve the conflict regarding

barriers to commerce that were unduly

restricting trade between the several

states. Yet the convention quickly

scrapped the Articles and drafted an

- entirely new foundation document.

It is frightening to note that the cur-

rent call in California is also limited to a

single purpose; in fact, California's ap-

plication provides for its recission if the

constitutional convention becomes a

"runaway." No constitutional authority

~ ean or will guarantee that a convention,

called for a single purpose, will not evis-

cerate the whole Constitution and

create who-knows-what out of the

debris.

In the nearly 200 years since the com-

plete overhaul of our most fundamental

document, every single one of the 26

amendments has been proposed and

ratified through the congressional

Graham and Allen

Sentences of death for two black |

amendment route. The people have

sensed that the purpose of an amend-

ment is to hone, refine, and repair the

Constitution and that a convention

should -be called only to redefine the

entire document.

That is not to say that there have never

been calls for a constitutional conven-

tion before. Hundreds of unsuccessful

drives have been spearheaded in the

past - by groups opposed to busing,

abortion, and the prohibition upon

prayer in the schools. Brent Barnhart,

ACLU-NC's legislative advocate in Sac-

ramento, points out that the convention

route can be undemocratic. `"`Although

popular opinion does not support the

anti-abortion movement, 15 states have

passed anti-abortion constitutional con-

vention resolutions since 1977. Anti-

abortion forces have chosen the conven-

tion rather than the congressional path

to an amendment because they have

failed to persuade Congress to propose

a constitutional amendment to ban all

abortions, and by using the convention

method, can depend upon a combina-

tion of small states and slim majorities

to make their minority position against

a woman's right to control her own

body the law of the land."'

None of these movements has ever re-

ceived the approval of 34 (two-thirds) of

the states necessary to convene a con-

vention. But the current call for a con-

: continued on page Z -

inmates, Ernest Graham and Eugene AGELU Responds

Allen, were overturned by the Cali-

fornia Supreme Court February 13.

Graham and Allen were convicted of

killing a prison guard in 1976, a convic-

- tion which carries a mandatory death

sentence under current California law.

In a unanimous opinion, the justices

ordered a new trial for Graham and

Allen because their original conviction

was rendered by an all-white. jury

created by the prosecution's exclusion

of all 14 prospective black jurors during

the March 1976 trial. |

The ACLU of Northern California

supported the Graham and Allen

appeal, challenging both the

mandatory death penalty provision of

the statute and the way in which the

jury was selected. =

The Court's February 13 Graham

and Allen decision does not resolve the

constitutionality of mandatory death

sentences provided for by Penal Code

Section 4500. Instead, the Court's

ruling overturned the convictions based

on the narrow issue of jury selection, a

subject which they had come to terms

with last November in a case called

People V. Wheeler. In that case, the

Court decided that peremptory

challenges during jury selection

(challenges made by either the prose-

cution or the defense where no cause for

excluding a prospective juror must be

shown) could not be based on a "group

bias'' such as race.

to lst Amend.

Challenge

Franklin Park in Santa Rosa has

been designated the site for a March 24

rally of the National Socialist White

Workers Party. Previously, the Santa

Rosa Parks and Recreation Depart-

ment had denied NSWWP permission

to use three other locations for an earli-

er date. The NSWWP had lost their

appeal on those applications at the

meeting of the Santa Rosa City Council

meeting February 6.

The Sonoma County Chapter of the

`ACLU responded to the denial of the

rally permit by speaking to the City

Council at the appeal hearing. Clarify-

ing the First Amendment issues for the

council were Jake Rubin of the Sonoma

County Chapter and Dorothy Ehrlich,

Executive Director of the ACLU-NC.

The Council heard testimony on both

sides of the question and a majority

voted to deny the appeal because they

felt there was danger of a repeat of the

violence that marred a NSWWP rally in

Santa Rosa last November.

The Council's: vote reflects the

"theckler's veto," the idea that a person

or group may be denied the right to

speak if the presence of the person

continued on page 4

March 1979

aclu news

Con -Con

continued from page I

stitutional convention may open the

way for these and other amendments.

We may be only five states away from a

new constitution. 2

ARTICLE V:

UNANSWERABLE QUESTIONS

The Congress, whenever two-

thirds of both Houses shall deem ~

it necessary, shall propose Amend-

ments to this Constitution, or on

the Application of the Legislatures |

of two-thirds of the several States,

shall call a Convention for propos-

ing Amendments, which, in either

Case, shall be valid to all Intents

and Purposes, as Part of this Con-

stitution, when ratified by the

Legislatures of three-fourths of

the several States, or by Conven-

tions in three-fourths thereof, as

the one or the other Mode of Rati-

fication may be proposed by the

Congress....

Article V raises questions regarding

the call for, the composition of, and the

powers of a constitutional convention

`that dismay and confound scholars, law-

makers, the judiciary - and the

ACLU. Following long and thoughtful

discussion of the issue, the Northern

California Board passed the following

resolution:

"The ACLU of Northern California

views the present call for a constitutional

convention as posing enormous risk to

civil liberties. - :

_ "Significant questions regarding the

composition and powers of a Constitu-

tional Convention are unanswerable:

Can a.convention be called for a single

purpose and can Congress or the courts

limit `or expand the convention's scope?

Which state legislatures' applications

are valid, and who decides? How are

delegates selected and by whom? How

will delegates be proportioned - under

the one-person/one-vote rule, like the

House of Representatives, or on a state-

by-state basis, like the Senate? Must

the president sign a congressional calli

for a convention? Would there be judi-

cial review of any or all of these de-

cisions?"

In his testimony to the Assembly,

Lawrence H. Tribe, Constitutional

authority and Professor of Law at Har-

vard University, said:

[Thomas] Jefferson, who consi-

dered the lack of a Bill of Rights .

in the Constitution a major defect

in the draft originally submitted

to the states, told Madison that he

would not oppose the Constitu-

tion's adoption - in order to

avoid a second Convention. In

calmer times . . . when single-issue

_ disagreements did not run so deep,

the risk of another Convention

might be worth running - if

the need were sufficiently great,

and if other avenues of constitu-

tional change had _ been

exhausted. That is a time in which

we do not yet live.

.. . [I]t is vital that the means

we choose for amending the Con-

stitution be generally understood

_and, above all, widely accepted as

legitimate. An Article V Conven-

tion, however, would today pro-

voke controversy and debate un-

' paralleled in recent constitutional

history. For the device is shrouded

in legal mystery of the most fun-

damentalsort....

What Tribe and others are saying is

that we don't know the consequence of

a constitutional convention and there is

a way, tried and true, to amend the

Constitution to provide for a balanced

budget.

- CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION:

A DANGEROUS COURSE

Brent Barnhart has pointed out that if

the states ask Congress to step in to lim- (c)

it a convention to a single issue, a dan-

gerous precedent has been set. What

happens when the people call for a gen-

eral convention to rework the whole of

the Constitution? Congress may again

step in to limit that convention to a

single issue, possibly one of its own (c)

choosing.

Barnhart feels that creating a new

foundation document is the only appro-

priate reason for holding an Article V

convention.

WHAT TO DO?

We can voice our concerns by writing

to our Assembly members to let them

know how strongly we feel about the po-

tential violence a constitutional conven-

tion could wreak upon our Constitution

and the Bill of Rights. Let us hope that a

desire to curb inflation and economic

uncertainty does not create a nightmare.

with apologies to Bortnick/ WEEKLY PEOPLE/LNS

San Francisco Lawyer Finishes Un

Kent pound

For nearly nine years, we have lived with the echo of the barrage of bullets that

tore through the crowd of unarmed students at Kent State University on May 4,

1970. Four students were killed and nine were wounded by the Ohio National

Guard gunfire that ended a student protest against the war in Indochina. The

deaths far away had been bad enough, but now, the government was killing our

children at home, too.

I had been with the national ACLU's legal staff in New York City as special

counsel for only a few days when I was assigned to investigate the May 4 shootings (c)

at Kent State. There was little anyone could do to ease the pain of the victims and

their families, but the ACLU could at least try to mitigate the tragedy by asking the

courts to place the blame and the responsibility for the outrage where it belonged:

with `Ohio's Governor-and Adjutant General, the officers of the troops who fired, |

and the troops themselves.

Twelve of the victims were represented by private personal injury lawyers until at

least the fall of 1975. The ACLU and its Ohio affiliate had from the beginning |

represented the estate of Sandra Scheuer, one of the students killed by the in- !

discriminate and unjustifiable Ohio National Guard gunfire. cs

Between May of 1970 and the fall of 1975, the war in Indochina raged on and

then was lost. Lost also during the same period were the first round of cases. The

Kent State Civil Damages Cases had been dismissed, remanded by the U.S.

Supreme Court for trial, then tried and lost in federal court in Cleveland.

Once the first trial was over, all the plaintiffs retained the ACLU to take the

appeal. Perhaps because of my previous involvement with the Kent State litigation 1

(while I had not participated in the first trial, I had moved in and out of these cases

as I moved in and out of the ACLU's employ), Aryeh Neier, then national ACLU

Executive Director, asked me to take on the appeal. I couldn't say no; it felt too

much like unfinished personal business.

I recruited a nationwide team of lawyers to prepare the briefs. San Francisco

participants included Nick Waranoff, an ACLU-NC cooperating attorney, and

Amitai Schwartz, a member of the ACLU-NC's legal staff. We were assisted by,

among others, Nancy Russell, formerly of the ACLU-NC's staff, and Jim Pem- f

berton, formerly of the ACLU national office's staff. I

Most of the financial needs for the appellate and subsequent legal efforts were

met out of funds raised on behalf of the Board of Church and Society of the United (c)

Methodist Church. Rev. John Adams, Director of Law, Justice, and Community - cent

Relations, ministered in every conceivable way to the Kent State victims. To this - $

day, he continues to do so. 3

We didn't have much hope of winning the appeal, so we were ecstatic when we _-it-

won in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The case was remanded for g

retrial in Cleveland federal district court. I

The litigation project immediately escalated. I recruited a pre-trial team which fi

The Paper Chase

The ACLU-NC affiliate office is in

dire need of metal filing cabinets.

We need at least S and could use

as many as 8. If you work at an

office which is changing over to'

another filing set-up, the old filing

Women's Day

Bella Abzug and Dorothy

Ehrlich, Executive Director of

ACLU-NC, will be featured

Speakers at the 4th Annual Day in

the Park for Women's Rights on.

Saturday, March 10, from noon

until 4 at the Golden Gate Park

_Band Shell.

The San Francisco and Gay

Rights Chapters of the ACLU-NC

cabinets can be given to the

ACLU-NC Foundation as a tax

deductible donation. Just call-us

at (415) 777-4880 and we'll

_ arrange to have the filing cabinets

_ picked up. Thanks.

in the Park

will participate in the celebration.

Entertainment planned in-

cludes speeches by Mary Spencer,

President of the SF chapter of

NOW; Valerie Coleman, Lynne

Joiner, and Jeannine Yoeman,

anchorwomen; Jeannine Whitlow, -

United Steel Workers; Willie

Brown, Assembly member; and

Harry Britt, Supervisor.

Bird Dogging the Legislature

Did you ever want to tell your state

legislator just what you thought of him

or her? Want to do it with 100 other

people behind you? Want to advance

civil liberties at the same time?

Too much to-hope for, you say?

Not so.

The ACLU of Northern California

will hold its Third Annual Legislative

Conference in Sacramento later this

spring (date to be announced). Not only

will you learn about the nooks and

crannies of our state capital, but you

will have a chance to stalk your own

legislators in their offices and give

them the highly-feared ``civil liberties

legislative agenda,'' the most powerful

weapon known to human freedom.

The year's conference will begin

establishing a network of grassroots |

lobbyists throughout Northern

California - your voice can be heard!

For further information, watch this

newspaper, or contact - by phone,

mail, or carrier pigeon - Michael

Miller, Field Representative at the NC

offices, 814 Mission, Room 301, San

Francisco, 94103 (415) 777-4880.

Jnfinished Business

- included, in cddition to the earlier San Francisco talent, Andrea Biren (whom I

recruited as the Staff Attorney for the ACLU Foundation's Kent State Project) and

Ellen Goldblatt (who succeeded Biren as the Kent State Project's Staff Attorney).

Primarily because. of Biren's and Goldblatt's efforts, we drowned the defen-

dants' lawyers in a sea of pre-trial motions, most of which eventually we won.

As the trial date approached, I completed recruiting the all-ACLU team:

Goldblatt; principal trial co-counsel, Rees Davis; senior trial co-counsel, David

Engdahl; paralegal litigation consultant, Steven Keller; and Golden Gate Univer-

sity Law School graduate, Bob Baker.

The plaintiffs' trial team gathered to work on the case full-time in Cleveland i in

early November - nearly a month before trial was to begin. We were receiving the

invaluable assistance of the National Jury Project. It became unmistakably clear

_ to the Court, to the defendants, and to Ohio officialdom that we were treating the

litigation with the utmost seriousness, and expending every conceivable resource

on the effort. We were gearing up to win - if winning were possible.

Yet, as we prepared the cases for trial, and even as we tried them, we also

prepared to settle them - on terms favorable to the victims. The trial judge,

William K. Thomas, did everything he could to settle the lawsuits.

And settle we did. All the plaintiffs ever wanted out of litigation was com-

pensation for actual injuries, some acknowledgement of responsibility, and some

assurance that excessive force will not be used in similar circumstances in the

future.

The plaintiffs Ail receive a substantial sum of money ($675,000.00) which is

sufficient to compensate the victims for their actual physical injuries. The State of

Ohio has volunteered to pay this money, even though it probably would not legally

have been obligated to do so had the plaintiffs won money judgments against the

defendants. (While sovereign immunity shielded the State of Ohio itself from suit

and from liability, it underwrote the defendants' legal fees and expenses.)

By paying the $675,000.00, the State of Ohio has acknowledged its responsibility

for the shootings, as have the individual defendants, each of whom Ly signed a

letter of regret - in essence, an apology.

The Kent State victims' unremitting eight and a half years of effort provides its

own modicum of assurance that excessive force will not be used in similar cir-

_ cumstances in the future. The Kent State defendants themselves agreed to sign a

statement that "`better ways must be found to deal with such confrontations."

The Kent State victims, who were made exceptional by circumstances beyond

their control, have helped us all to deal both with unresolved issues of excessive

government force and with unresolved disputes left over from the war in

Indochina. The shooting has stopped and we are grateful that the echoes are

fading; but, I hope, never entirely to fade. Copyright (c) 1979

Public Education Director

Joining the ACLU-NC staff from

Memphis, Tennessee is Kelly Stark,

new Public Education Director. She

will edit the ACLU News, handle press

relations and publicity, design bro-

chures explaining points of law and

individual rights, and _ coordinate

education programs for the chapters

and the general public.

Stark has taught writing and

literature at various colleges and

universities including the University of

Oregon and Memphis State University.

She designed the writing curriculum for

an experimental educational program

at the Memphis Correctional Center, a

state regional prison for men.

Turning to the publishing field in

1976, she worked first as Assistant to

the Publisher, then as _ Associate

Marketing Manager, and finally as

editor of RACQUETBALL Magazine,

an international publication.

Dear ACLU-NC Members:

It is with real pleasure and a sense of

coming home that I begin editing this

issue of the ACLU News. I don't mean

that I have lived in California before -

I haven't - but the ACLU has always

seemed to me to be at the center of

things, a place where one's work and

values can really change things from the

way they are to the way they should be.

And I'm going to need your help. I

want to make the ACLU News in-

formative, instructive, and readable,

but in order to do that, I have to know

what you think the newsletter should

be. I'm asking for your response to the

articles, issues, and editorials so that I

can create what you want. I need for

you to think about what interests (or

confuses) you so that I can respond with

careful research.

Kelly Stark, Public Education

I do have some ideas of my own that

I'd like to implement in the coming .

months: a letters to the editor column;

an occasional debate of an issue that

has more than one "right''

photo by Michael Miller

side; a

March 1979

aclunews |

Of Looking Before Lounge

by Brent Barnhart,

ACLU Legislative Advocate |

The ACLU has always opposed bail

bond systems which base freedom

- pending trial on ability to pay. Yet to

date ACLU and other defense groups

-have resisted supporting the Brown

Administration's bail reform package

(AB2, authored by

Howard Berman), because it carries

additional baggage which presents

significant constitutional problems.

Since we've always supported bail

reform, ACLU members are entitled to

have that reluctance explained.

Persons accused of crime

presumed innocent, and no punishment

including confinement - may

constitutionally be imposed uniess the

accused is convicted after a fair trial.

Nevertheless, under California's bail

system, a person accused of serious

crime avoids pretrial detention only if.

(1) he or she has sufficient money to

post the full amount of bail (usually

somewhere between $5,000 and

$15,000), or if (2) a bondsman can be

secured to post the full amount of bail

for a 10% .fee. While judges in

California also have the authority to

release defendants on their Own

Recognizance (OR) - i.e., solely on

their promise to appear - OR's are

seldom granted except

misdemeanors and minor felonies.

ACLU is providing amicus (friend of

the court) support to a major attack on

the existing bail system, which was filed

in 1974, and is currently awaiting

argument before the California

Supreme Court. In that taxpayers' suit,

brought by two San Francisco law

firms, Morrison _ Foerster and

McCutchen, Doyle, Brown and

Enerson, plaintiffs have presented

evidence that in San Francisco more

than one-half of all persons awaiting

trial remain in custody for lack of

resources.

Under alternative pretrial release

_ systems presently operating in such

places as Philadelphia, Washington,

D.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., and the State of

Illinois where so-called `10%

deposit'' .systems are used - ap-

pearance rates (or "`skip rates'') are as

good as California's. Under a 10%

deposit system, the accused still must

come up with at least 10% of the total

bond imposed, but instead of that 10%

going to a bondsman as a fee, the

money is posted with the court, then

Assemblyman -

are -

for -

"know your rights'' column; analyses of

some of the more complex issues that

confront us; a report on policy decisions

as determined by the board in response

to current events; and an occasional

"how to' protect your rights feature.

When you see some of these in the

coming year, please let me know how

you feel about them.

In short, I can't read your mind, I

can only read your letters. I can't give

you what you want unless you tell me ~

what that is.

~The ACLU News is not created in a

vacuum, nor does it magically appear in

your mail box eight times a year. It

results from the events and issues that

concern all civil libertarians. Especially

you.

Regards,

Kelly Stark

refunded to the defendant at the

conclusion of trial. Such a system does

not guarantee that every defendant

awaiting trial on a serious charge can

avoid pretrial incarceration, but it

would free many thousands in

California each year who currently

remain behind bars.

The Berman bill sets up a 10%

deposit system, but it also creates an

open-ended conditional release

mechanism that we look upon with

great suspicion. Conditional release is

supposed to be an agreement signed by

the defendant that pending trial he or

she will reside at a certain place, work

at a certain place, and live with certain

persons, and that at regular intervals

the defendant will check in with the

court to indicate that he or she is still

present and available for trial.

To some extent judges already im-

pose some conditions when setting bail,

by informal admonitions to the

defendant. The judge has the authority

to revoke bail at any time, and a-

bondsman may _ ``surrender'' the

detendant at any time. So a defendant

who strays very far from the judge's

admonitions may have bail revoked.

However, no formalized system of what

we fear may become essentailly pretrial

probation presently exists.

What defense advocates fear is that

open-ended conditional release - will

routinely include such features as

requiring defendants to submit to

regular blood or urine tests (to ascertain

drug use); mandatory waiver of rights

against unlawful search and seizure;

and ``check-in'' procedures such as

weekly interrogations by the police

officers assigned to defendant's case.

We also fear significant abuses in

political cases. Innovative judges could

require defendants to refrain from

union organizing activities, cease

engaging in public discussion of certain

issues, and cease associating with

disapproved persons. and groups.

To date, bail bondsmen and the giant

insurance companies who back them

have been able to turn back significant

bail reform in California. The fact that

the Governor is willing in 1979 to back

bail reform. should be: cause for

rejoicing. But as desirable as bail

reform may be, ACLU learned the hard

way with SB42 (the Determinate Sen-

tencing Law passed in 1976) that it's

best to step cautiously before leaping

onto a Brown Administration om

Dandyagan:

Braut 1s

On February 15, Superior Court

Judge W.H. Phelps overruled the Shasta

County School District's request for a

demurrer in the ACLU-NC's case against

the banning of Richard Brautigan's ~

books at Anderson Union High School.

A demurrer is a motion to dismiss the

case which essentially says that even if

the defendants did what the plaintiffs

accuse them of, it isn't against the law.

Phelps, in an unusually detailed opin-

ion, said "`the authorities cited by Plain-

tiffs are indeed unanimous [sic] that the

students have a right to read and be ex-

posed to controversial thought and lan-

_ guage, a valuable right subject to First

continued on page 4

Mi March 1979

aclu news

CHAPTERS

O K continued from page 1

said persons were chanting and singing

in an extremely loud manner." One

W.O.E. member was accused of battery

for allegedly touching an Olsten em-

ployee.

At the court hearing, ACLU-NC's

Crosby and ERA's Davis argued that

W.O.E.'s efforts to inform the public of

alleged employment abuses were

protected by the First Amendment and

could not be enjoined. Judge Robert W.

Merrill agreed, and refused to issue a

temporary restraining order against

W.O.E.

"Although Olsten claimed that the

W.O.E. demonstrators blocked the

sidewalks and intimidated potential

employees, the company's real concern

was that W.O.E.'s signs and leaflets

would embarrass Olsten by triggering

public disapproval of the treatment

afforded temporary employees," Crosby

stated. ``Olsten was therefore not at-

tempting -to enforce municipal or-

dinances designed to prevent traffic

hazards, but to stifle dissent. This is

censorship based on the content of

speech, and we are pleased to see that

the corporation was unsuccessful in

enlisting the court's assistance in

violating the constitutional rights of

W.O.E. members." . .

Speaking for W.O.E., Linda Ben-

mour said, ``At all times we were in

`control and responsible for our

behavior. Olsten's overreaction. to the

W.O.E. demonstration clearly shows

that they are threatened by what we

have to say.'' Benmour also said that

the demonstrating women did not block

the entrance of the building. "If this

had occurred, then we would have

lst Amendment

continued from page 1

speaking or the content of the speech

causes unrest or even violence among

_ the onlookers.

Rubin and Ehrlich reminded the

Council of the ACLU's long history with

similar cases and the courts' record of

protecting all speech, no matter how

unpopular the speaker's view may be.

Ehrlich explained to the Council that

the First Amendment prohibits any

governmental body from picking and

choosing who has the right to speak.

"The Constitution does not grant that

authority to anyone - in fact, it

specifically relieves all of us from

making those kinds of difficuh

choices."

A majority of the Council felt that the

two open-air sites the NSWWP had

applied for were not suitable and ex-

created a mob scene in front of the

building. But people moved in and out

smoothly."

Olsten has not pursued its attempt to

secure a preliminary injunction against

picketing, but the case will proceed to

trial on the permanent injunction and

damage claims, and will be defended by

ACLU-NC.

Margaret Crosby received the following -

letter January 15:

Dear Margaret:

I just had to drop you a note and

thank you for your and ACLU's

support regarding the Olsten Law

Suit against WOE.

To me, personally, it is ironic that

the ACLU is defending WOE. I'll

explain why. I had just given

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

when that great solicitation letter

by Goldberg was sent out. I told

many people that I was giving

money because the Skokie case

could just as well have been WOE

demanding the right to protest

and march. Ironically, now it is.

Anyway, thanks for your help in

the matter.

Sincerely,

Regina Beatus

W.O.E.

_ pressed grave doubts about the city's

_ police force being able to handle any

disruptions. =

~ After the City Council meeting an

several meetings with the Parks and

Recreation Department, Franklin Park

was agreed upon as the site for the.

March 24 rally.

In case you're wondering...

`Why. the American Civil

Liberties Union Defends Free

Speech for Racists and

Totalitarians"

Send for our booklet. ACLU-NC

814 Mission Street, Rooms 301,

San Francisco, CA 94103

re

aclu news

8 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, June-July,

August-September and November-December

$ Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Drucilla Ramey, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director

Kelly Stark, Editor oo

ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040) (3)

eed

eee

Ic

814 Mission St. - Ste. 301, San Francisco, California 94103 - 777-4545.

Membership $20 and up, of which 50 cents is for a subscription to the aclu news

and 50 cents is for the national ACLU bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.

e

Marin (c)

The Marin Chapter Board of

Directors is now planning the annual

meeting which will be held at the Kent

Estate in Kent Woodlands in May.

Virginia Franklin, vice-chairperson

of the Board, has made arrangements

to travel to Washington, D.C. and will

confer with several outstanding

national figures notable for their strong

support of civil liberties about speaking

at the annual meeting. More details at a

later date.

The Board is heartened at the in-

crease of members attending the

monthly Board of Directors' meeting

and reminds members who may wish to

attend that the meetings are held on the

third Monday of the month at the

Fidelity Savings and Loan, Throck-

morton St., Mill Valley, at 8 p.m. (The -

February meeting, however, will be the

fourth Monday, February 26.)

`e

Mt. Diablo

Michael Miller, liaison from ACLU-

NC, will be at the chapter meeting, March

21, 1979. All interested persons are

most cordially invited to attend. Among.

the topics to be discussed will be

ACLU-NC opposition to the proposed

calling of a Federal Constitutional

Convention. The meeting will be at 7:45

p.m., at Dave Bortin's. The telephone

. number is 934-1927. The address: 117

Los Altos, Walnut Creek, California.

Anyone interested in helping with a

spring seminar designed to reach high

school students, please contact: Cleo

Morales as soon as possible. Her

telephone number is 439-5623.

Earl Warren

The Earl Warren Chapter Board will

be holding a Wine and Cheese Party

along with a Food for Thought

discussion on ``Civil Liberties of the

Handicapped." Allen Hoskins, of the

Alameda County Association for the

Mentally Retarded, will be the invited

guest speaker for the evening. |

This will be an excellent opportunity

for Earl Warren Chapter members and

their guests to begin working on some

common civil liberties concerns facing

our and other chapters.

This event will be held on Saturday

March 3rd, 1979 at :

residence of Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd Perry,

3039 Shay Drive, Oakland. Please call

569-3454 for further information. A

$5.00 donation will be accepted.

(The Earl Warren Chapter includes all

of Alameda County south of Berkeley.)

B-A-K

All ACLU-NC members are invited

to the Berkeley-Albany-Kensington

Chapter POT LUCK Sunday, March

25, at 6:30 p.m..at 879 Indian Rock,

Berkeley, CA.

Our guests will be Dorothy Ehrlich

new Executive Director of the ACLU-

NC, and Drucilla Ramey, new chair-

person of ACLU-NC Board of Direc-

tors.

Members whose last names begin A-I

are asked to bring a main course dish

(preferably finger food) J-O should

bring salads and vegetables; P-Z should

bring desserts. Everyone should bring

| drinks.

Board,

7:30 at the

San Francisco

The San Francisco

Chapter is planning to participate in

the 4th Annual Women's Day in the

Park, March 10. Events and displays will

take place on the concourse in front of

the De Young, and the chapter willtend

a table, giving out literature and in-

formation about the ACLU. Members

are invited to stop by, say hello, and

perhaps articulate what their own

current civil liberties concerns are. The

main thrust of the Women's Day will be

support of the Equal Rights Amend-

ment.

We're also in the process of selecting

a topic for discussion at our annual

meeting in May. Suggestions have

included: media control, violent

pornography, gun control, KJAZ,

SB1437, the fairness doctrine, nuclear

power, and the right to privacy. If any

_member has a strong idea pertaining to

any one of these topics, or perhaps a

speaker suggestion, please sent it to the

SF Chapter, ACLU, 814

Mission.

Board elections will be held at the

May meeting. Nominations from

members may be sent to the ACLU San

Francisco Chapter, 814 Mission Street,

Suite 301, San Francisco 94103.

Gay Rights

At its January 24th meeting, the Gay

Rights Chapter's Board of Directors

completed the re-organization of the

Chapter's committee structure by filling

all committee chair vacancies. As a

result, the present Chapter officers and

committee chairpersons are as follows: |

Vice

President, Zona Sage _ Esq.;

President, Larry A. Long Esq.;

Secretary-Treasurer, Margaret L.

Furnish; Representative to ACLU-NC

Board, Paul F. Newton; Legal Com-

mittee Chairperson, John J. Sullivan -

Esq; Legislative Committee Chair-

person, Don Schmidt; Bulletin

Newsletter Editors, Priscilla Camp Esq.

and Don M. Liles; and Public Affairs and

Membership Committee Co-

chairpersons, Mary Morgan Esq. and

Fred B. Rosenberg Esq.

Mid-Penn

The next meeting of the Mid-Penin-

sula Chapter will be on Thursday,

March 29, at 8:00 PM at the All Saints

Episcopal Church, corner of Hamilton

and Waverly Streets in Palo Alto. The

public is invited. For further informa-

tion, call Len Edwards at 287-6193.

@

Brautigan

continued from page3 _

Amendment protection. No authority to

the contrary has been cited by the

County Counsel. Removing books

already bought and paid for (sans ob-

scenity) and placed in the library does

appear to be an infringement."

Wexner, supported by ACLU of Nor-

thern California, took the case to court,

arguing that the school board, which

had upheld the principal's ruling, had

arbitrarily and capriciously violated

both his rights and the rights of his stu-

dents to the constitutional guarantee of

the flow of free information.