Slashdot Mirror

exactly, they are more focused on defending child molesters like NAMBLA than defending the rights of every man woman and child in the country in copyright law chalenges.

exactly, they are more focused on defending child molesters like NAMBLA than defending the rights of every man woman and child in the country in copyright law chalenges.

exactly, they are more focused on defending child molesters like NAMBLA than defending the rights of every man woman and child in the country in copyright law chalenges.

1. San Francisco Examiner
   
2. American Civil Libterties Union
   
3. Los Angeles Times (archived at globalechange.org, but I checked the article against LA Times' for-pay-archive)
   

a href=

I asked:
"What defines a blog, anyway? "

Tablizer replied:
"How about: If it turns a profit, it is no longer a blog."

Well, there goes CNN.com, Alternet.org, Fair.org, ACLU.org, Kuro5hin, IMDB, the MIT Tech Review and everything on the BBC website.

On the other hand we'll now get authoratative hits from Amazon, Buy.com and Microsoft.

Woot!

Congresspeople start getting cut off from their constituency.

In Washington State, I just heard that legislators will start ignoring emails for constituents because there are just too many to read. I think this is awfully lame. I guess when there's too much snail-mail, they'll just ignore the constituents altogether! However, don't hesitate to try to contact your representative!

or "When they came for the cartoons I did nothing because I wasn't a cartoon"

Weren't there some government hearings on cartoon violence a few years ago? Didn't the television folks agree to straighten up and fly right? It sounds like that's about the time cartoons started getting lame. Coincidence? I don't think so. I got curious about what happened and did some googling....

STEP 1. OMG! Marvin the Martian just blew up the Earth, and that's supposed to be funny?

from TRUCE - Teachers Resiting Unhealty Children's Entertainment

"Too much of what children see on television is violence as entertainment. It undermines lessons we teach at home and school about how people treat each other, and encourages the use of violence to solve problems and to have fun. We have seen the effects of this glamorized violence in such events as school shootings."

STEP 2. I am shocked and appalled and am going to do something about it.

from lionlamb.org

"The mission of The Lion & Lamb Project is to stop the marketing of violence to children. We do this by helping parents, industry and government officials recognize that violence is not child's play - and by galvanizing concerned adults to take action."

"Lion & Lamb works to reduce the marketing of violent toys, games and entertainment to children in two distinct ways. We work with parents and other concerned adults to reduce the demand for violent "entertainment" products, and with industry and government to reduce the supply of such products."

"We believe that attitudes about violence as "entertainment" can be changed over time. Just as attitudes about drunk driving and smoking have changed, we believe that Lion & Lamb can help forge a national consensus that violence is not child's play. Just as it has become "uncool" to pollute and to litter, we are working to change the tolerance level for violence as a "cool" theme for toys and other entertainment products for children."

STEP 3. Well, if you think about it, we can't do it ourselves, so we need the government to force everyone to do the right thing.

"Too often, both government and the entertainment industry place all responsibility for monitoring the games children play on the shoulders of their parents. Certainly, parents need to be vigilant and provide their kids with guidance. But in a culture where $1 billion a year is spent by industries of all sorts to advertise their products directly to children, parents can't stem the tide of "entertainment" violence on their own." - snippet from an article at LionLamb.org

STEP 4. The Government is only too happy to oblige. Who could vote against protecting children?

"Senator Paul Simon, speaking to a conference organized in Beverly Hills on August 2 by the National Council for Families and Television, told some 650 representatives of the broadcasting business who were present that he was giving them sixty days to come up with a plan to regulate themselves with respect to the portrayal of violence--or else they would face some sort of government regulation." - from newcriterion.com article archived from Sept. 1993

Step 5. Mission Accomplished

"Culminating a protracted campaign against TV violence, both Houses of Congress have passed legislation requiring that new televisions be equipped with the so-called v-chip -- a computerized chip capable of detecting program ratings and blocking adversely rated programs from view." - from an article in the ACLU Archive

Pray tell me, what pit have you been hiding in since 2001?
DECSS ring a bell? how about this article? or this censorware article? or even just a simple ping? the DMCA, Section 1201 (a)(1) prohibits unauthorized access to a work by circumventing an effective technological protection measure used by a copyright owner to control access to a copyrighted work.

If you copyrite a image and place it on your website, and offer to sell this image, then state that anyone who pays for the image can go to the IP address of the website instead of it's URL and be able to download the image, and then someone runs a tracert or DNS query against your URL to discover the IP, that person is in violation of the DMCA.

It's truly pathetic, Only Freenet can save us at this point. or a revolution, I suppose.

ACLU on Immigrant detentions

Mass detentions in LA

'Handful' detained in Houston

CIvil liberties groups file suit on behalf of INS detainees

US detains nearly 1200 during registry

Forgotten detainees

After Oaklahoma City, the US passed laws allowing the use of "Secret Evidence" to detain or deport. It's been used almost exclusively on Arabs and Muslims.

ACLU on Immigrant detentions

Mass detentions in LA

'Handful' detained in Houston

CIvil liberties groups file suit on behalf of INS detainees

US detains nearly 1200 during registry

Forgotten detainees

After Oaklahoma City, the US passed laws allowing the use of "Secret Evidence" to detain or deport. It's been used almost exclusively on Arabs and Muslims.

A citizen's insurrection to correct the misdeeds of our government cannot stand up to our professional military.

I will note that this is much the same as the position of the ACLU on the Second Amendment. (Fair Disclosure: I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU, though I don't agree with their conclusion on this matter.)

As a student of military affairs, it is obvious to me that any attempt to fight a set-piece battle force-on-force with the U.S. military is pretty much doomed from the outset unless your men and equipment measure up to ours.

However, that does not mean that it is impossible to successfully engage and defeat our forces. Allow me to recommend The Battle for Hunger Hill by Daniel P. Bolger (ISBN 0891414533). This is the story of Colonel Bolger's experience at the Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk, Louisiana. FYI, Ft. Polk is where the U.S. armed forces train for what they call "Low Intensity Conflict" and "Operations Other Than War".

As I understand Col. Bolger's account, the OPFOR at Ft. Polk regularly hands even elite units their ass with only a comparative handful of men. The typical "enemy" soldier at Ft. Polk is armed only with a rifle, a few grenades, and perhaps a sidearm. They work in teams of four men, which take on units of company size with ease. Astoundingly, the OPFOR teams use exactly three basic drills against an enemy unit: Break Contact, Box Ambush, and Baited Trap Ambush.

These teams do have some support in the form of mortar fires, but these must be of necessity sporadic and consist of only a few rounds when available. If memory serves me correctly, the mortar teams sometimes move the not-designed-to-be-man-portable-tubes by hand in order to avoid counter-battery fires.

Another book that, while fiction, might prove both educational and entertaining is The Prince, by Jerry Pournelle and S. M. Stirling (ISBN 0743435567). This is a compilation of the Falkenberg's Legion saga into a single volume. Much of the story concerns a ultra-modern military force fighting a well-funded and equipped guerrilla/terrorist uprising.

All of which is to say that small teams of highly motivated and dedicated individuals can and do defeat much larger units of our armed forces. Now, I'm not suggesting that every pick-up truck full of heavily-armed rednecks fits this description, but I think you'll allow that some of them might.

I would further point out that every member of the U.S. armed forces swears an oath to "[...] support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic;".

Imagine for a moment a hypothetical future in which the people have staged a general revolt against the federal government of the United States. For the sake of argument assume that this is a good-faith revolution with the stated goal of the restoration of constitutional government to the U.S. Furthermore, assume that the arguments for armed revolt are legitimate and beyond reproach, and a neutral outside observer would say that the President was an enemy of the Constitution. Now imagine the minds of the commanders. They have sworn oaths to both defend the Constitution and obey the President, each of which is now in direct opposition. I believe that at least some unit commanders would chose to join the rebellion. For further reading please see The Origins of the Military Coup of 2012 by Lt. Colonel Charles J. Dunlap, Jr.

You could say that the fact that the government troops would posses WMD might tip the balance in their favor, but I'm not sure even a cynical and corrupt U.S. regime would use WMD on their own soil. It is also unclear to me whether such WMD use would attract outside aid or intervention.

In conclusion, I think that the only time armed revolt b

>Look, I'm a lot more likely to accept claims made by people with PhDs and 60 years of experience in this stuff than random slashdotters as far as how much food we have for people, BUUUT, that being said, I was only posting quotes from the show.

Granted. Regardless of what alphabet soup you have trailing your name, its hard to fully quantify how much food is made worldwide, its not like everyone who makes food reports to a central authority or anything. I've heard estimates both ways.

Yeah, Greenepeace is probably a little overzealous. I'm trying to remember where it was that I heard someone talking about the wisdom that his father had passed on to him, that it's necessary to have extremists to some extent on both sides to help keep the majority of the population in check... with only arch-conservative or only ultra-liberal factins who speak out (which is really what the majority of the world doesn't do, and that is speak out) the people wouldn't have a difference of opinion to choose from. Anti-government and anti-capitalist forces are necessary, I think anyway, to continually challenge existing systems so they don't become decadent.

>Greepeace is a corporation themselves, and they suck, in too many ways to describe. I think the biggest one is, though, that they LIE, and not just a little, a LOT and OFTEN.

Greenpeace is not for profit organization, which isn't to say that they don't have an agenda (they do) or that they always tell the truth (they don't) but they don't really have a product to sell. They're an activist group like the ACLU on the libertarian side politically or the Christian Coalition on the authoritarian side. As for the lying, not to use the excuse that "everyone does it" but the truth is everyone in politics and economics does do it, intentionally or unintentionally, since they have an adgenda and varying degrees of ethics in achieving said adgenda. I don't think its right to hold them to a higher standard than, oh, another few entities.

I know they're just quotes, but I think it was Orwell who said something about blind reproduction of quotes, stastics, and figures lets others do the thinking for you. Food for thought ^_^.

Thank goodness someone brought this issue to light. I tried submitting an article earlier and was rejected.

This DMCA stuff is serious. Together with the USA PATRIOT act, we are *seriously* look at an Orwellian future, people.

It's really time to do something, no more procrastinating.

If you can't go out and do something in person, then at least make a donation to the EFF and the ACLU. They both even have a monthly recurring system where you can have a small charge made to your credit card every month. A monthly contriubtion will make you feel a lot less guilty when going to the movie theater or blockbuster.

Please don't let this pass you by. The ??AA lobbyists are subverting our freedoms to tell us what we are allowed to do with the things we already own!

It's ridiculous that corporations have more political power than the people who actually elect our officials. Can we not read the bribery between the lines? This is offensive on so many levels...

It's time to act, people. How do you want your future to be determined -- by youself or by a corporation?

The ACLU has a good summary of what you're asking for here: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID =12263&c=206

The EFF has their analysis here: http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_ militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html.

And the Center for Democracy & Technology has a long list of links here: http://www.cdt.org/security/usapatriot/analysis.sh tml

Now go read at least one of these links before making anymore comments on how you don't think the Patriot act isn't bad for your freedom. EnkiduEOT

The ACLU has a good summary of what you're asking for here: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID =12263&c=206

The EFF has their analysis here: http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_ militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html.

And the Center for Democracy & Technology has a long list of links here: http://www.cdt.org/security/usapatriot/analysis.sh tml

Now go read at least one of these links before making anymore comments on how you don't think the Patriot act isn't bad for your freedom. EnkiduEOT

The ACLU does this (on a more limited basis). See for instance this one about Carnivore.

the so-called "Amber Alert" bill, which was initially intended to provide a national alert system for missing children (ooh, tug at those heartstrings!) yet is larded up with all sorts of crapola that would never have passed otherwise, including mandatory minimum sentencing, expanded wiretaps, and Joe Biden's "RAVE Act" that would make it a felony to hold dances with electronic music if someone gets high there. Ri-fucking-diculous. (Good discussion over at plastic.)

IANAL BIWWT (but I work with them)
Sounds like a violation of the students rights by a long shot. While I am not a big fan of them, this is a good reason the aclu exists. NOw if they had a court order for seizure of evidence that would be legitimate ... unless the students who took the pictures were shown rioting also then it would be illegal under self incrimination.

They do, but you have to search for it.

Their position is reasonably moderate, and exactly the constitution interpretation I'd expect from the Brady Campaign or similar groups, but it just doesn't jibe with the ACLU's rabid defense of the other civil liberties:

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

Compare to their general position on Criminal Justice:

For the past generation, state and federal crime control policies have been based on the belief that law enforcement can solve the problem; more police, harsher sentencing laws, greater use of the death penalty. But today, with an unprecedented number of people behind bars, we are no safer than before. We are, however, much less free.

The rights guaranteed to criminal suspects, defendants, offenders and prisoners were not included in the Bill of Rights for the benefit of criminals. They are fundamental political rights that protect all Americans from governmental abuse of power. These rights are found in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. They include the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to reasonable bail, the right to due process of law and the right to be free from cruel and unusual treatment. This "bundle of rights" is indispensable to a free society.

I guess they can reconcile these positions, but I can't.

And if you donate to the "ACLU Foundation" (instead of the "ACLU"), then your donation is tax deductible!

ACLU and ACLU Foundation, What is the Difference?

Gifts to the ACLU Foundation are fully tax-deductible to the donor; membership dues and gifts to the ACLU are not tax-deductible. This is because the ACLU engages in substantial legislative lobbying, which cannot by law, be supported by tax-deductible funds. The ACLU Foundation, on the other hand, conducts our litigation and communications efforts, and contributions to it are tax-deductible.

When Christian students cannot have a Bible Study at school during free time don't see our local ACLU joinging in to help protect these student's freedoms.

Do you know what you are talking about? ACLU Supports Right of Iowa Students to Distribute Christian Literature at School

The ACLU is too busy making sure no schoolchildren do anything to celebrate Christmas, and persecuting anyone who believes in a Christian god. They haven't said boo shit about PATRIOT, and it's doubtful they ever will.

boo shit, for a start.

Search on the word, 'patriot'.

The ACLU is too busy making sure no schoolchildren do anything to celebrate Christmas, and persecuting anyone who believes in a Christian god. They haven't said boo shit about PATRIOT, and it's doubtful they ever will.

boo shit, for a start.

Search on the word, 'patriot'.

The ACLU is too busy making sure no schoolchildren do anything to celebrate Christmas, and persecuting anyone who believes in a Christian god. They haven't said boo shit about PATRIOT, and it's doubtful they ever will.

boo shit, for a start.

Search on the word, 'patriot'.

This legislation can be stopped. It only takes 40 Senators to filibuster a bill, and if the Democrats are willing to show some guts, there might be enough pro-civil liberties Republicans to shoot it down there, too.

Immediately go the ACLU's action page where you can send a free fax to your representatives. It'll take you all of 15 seconds.

Next, call both of your Senators and your representative. Politely but firmly demand that they vote against this. Make clear that how your senator votes on civil liberties issues is very important to you.

If you haven't already done so, Register to Vote (PDF document).

Write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Doesn't have to be a great work of prose, just give an example or two of how the PATRIOT Act threatens the constitution. Give the Ben Franklin quote. Letters to the Editor is one of the most read sections of the newspaper, and politicos read it closely.

Tell your friends. Sure, some people get irritated when politics gets brought up, but that's a small price to pay for the future of American democracy.

Lastly, act on your belief when election time comes around. Donate, volunteer, and vote for candidates who are on record supporting constitutional liberties.

What about these pages on the ACLU website? They've also held discussions with other civil liberties groups on CSPAN where the PATRIOT Act was unfavorably mentioned numerous times.

...join in the ACLU.

--Bruce F.

> So basically the Patriot Act says that library
> records can be used in terrorist investigations.
> Is that it, or is there something more sinister
> I'm missing?

Among other things, the PATRIOT Act allows the FBI to not only get a list of all web sites or books you've seen from a library, but it forbids the library to tell you that the FBI came-a lookin'.

The ACLU has more information here and here.

Claiming that these brave new powers will only be used to combat terrorism is a bit misleading. "Terrorism" is whatever the government wants to call it. For example, the government at one time wanted to call computer cracking "computer terrorism". Or, consider the fact that Senate Bill 742 in Oregon, introduced by Republican John Minnis, would define as a terrorist, a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly." Keep in mind, that means if you start a food fight, you could be a terrorist under this law.

Brings to mind a line from Patrick McGoohan in The Prisoner, "Why don't you just put us all in solitary confinement and be done with it!"

> So basically the Patriot Act says that library
> records can be used in terrorist investigations.
> Is that it, or is there something more sinister
> I'm missing?

Among other things, the PATRIOT Act allows the FBI to not only get a list of all web sites or books you've seen from a library, but it forbids the library to tell you that the FBI came-a lookin'.

The ACLU has more information here and here.

Claiming that these brave new powers will only be used to combat terrorism is a bit misleading. "Terrorism" is whatever the government wants to call it. For example, the government at one time wanted to call computer cracking "computer terrorism". Or, consider the fact that Senate Bill 742 in Oregon, introduced by Republican John Minnis, would define as a terrorist, a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly." Keep in mind, that means if you start a food fight, you could be a terrorist under this law.

Brings to mind a line from Patrick McGoohan in The Prisoner, "Why don't you just put us all in solitary confinement and be done with it!"

News for ya: Bush doens't make the laws. He signs them but your representatives make them.

This was alluded to in an earlier post, but I'll spell it out:

The Senate version of the Patriot Act, which closely resembled the legislation requested by Attorney General John Ashcroft, was sent straight to the floor with no discussion, debate, or hearings. Many Senators complained that they had little chance to read it, much less analyze it, before having to vote. In the House, hearings were held, and a carefully constructed compromise bill emerged from the Judiciary Committee. But then, with no debate or consultation with rank-and-file members, the House leadership threw out the compromise bill and replaced it with legislation that mirrored the Senate version. Neither discussion nor amendments were permitted, and once again members barely had time to read the thick bill before they were forced to cast an up-or-down vote on it. The Bush Administration implied that members who voted against it would be blamed for any further attacks - a powerful threat at a time when the nation was expecting a second attack to come any moment and when reports of new anthrax letters were appearing daily.

Here's the source.

So yes, I think Bush is directly responsible for the passing of bad laws by way of manipulating "representatvies". They certainly weren't conducting the Will of the Public when they weren't given time to read the legislation and were threatened to vote for it by other members of the government.

They didn't only not bother reading the Patriot Act before passing it, they weren't even allowed to discuss before voting on it!

The reason we know about this guy is the high profile of some of his advocates. From the A.C.L.U- "According to a November 2002 Washington Post story on the use of material witness warrants, more than 40 people have been detained by the Justice Department since September 11, 2001. As of that time, seven of those were U.S. citizens."

Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla have been locked up now for around a year(Over a year in Hamdi's case I think). Both have been refused access to a lawyer and neither have had charges filed against them. These are american citizens. This could happen to you. This could happen to somebody you know.

Our own government is locking people up without due process or just killing them to save the hassle. Something really has to be done. Write your congressmen, join the ACLU(I did yesterday), participate in protests even if it feels stupid at first. The only way we're going to keep our rights is to actively work to defend them, especially with facists like Bush, Ashcroft, and Rumsfield at the helm.

The Bill of Rights is a barrier between the people and a flood of governmental limitations -- one cannot seriously claim to support this barrier while simultaneously poking holes in it.

Another analogy : Think of the restriction of rights (in this case, 2nd amendment rights) as a process, like trying to bake a pie. The ACLU, along with other groups, uses the courts to perfect a recipe for peach pie (elimination of 2nd amendment rights). Once the recipe is perfected, any other group can change "peach" to "apple" (substitute 4th amendment for 2nd) and bake a different pie. The state sees that it can instigate limitations on the rights of the governed, the courts have a previous case which appears to favor those limitations, and the people have been conditioned to accept those limitations.

....and there goes my karma....

So, what fundamental right does the ACLU stand up for when they sue a small community for putting up a nativity scene in front of a public building, but fail to sue any non-Christian (but still religious) display in front of another public building. You can't name one case where they've done that. If you can, please provide the link.

Here. And here.

You're right, I couldn't name one. I could name two though.

It looks like nobody else is really interested in standing up for the Constitution - including the government.

Unfortunately, the ACLU's not interested, either.

As long as the ACLU refuses to recognize the 2nd Amendment I'll continue to not recognize the ALCU as actually looking out for our civil liberties.

On reflection, it seems like the ACLU is just not recognizing what you think the 2nd Amendment means. Their position seems fairly reasonable to me. I would expect a reasonable person would understand their dithering on the second amendment(do we advocate people can own nukes? do we support some 'weapons of mass destruction' exception? if we support an exception that is not explicit in the amendment, doesn't that mean we're back where we started?) when it's so much different that the black-and-white of, say, civil forfeiture laws.

If you think the ACLU has done nothing for "our civil liberties," I'd suggest you conduct some legal research.

The ACLU does many good things in protecting your civil rights. Things like protecting your right to free speech, your right to be protected against unreasonable search and siezure, your right to peacefully interact with society without fear of retribution for your political, religeous, or social philospy. The list goes on and on. Yet you would deny them their legitimacy on the grounds that you disagree with their stance on a single issue. That stikes me as incredibly short sighted. What's wrong with supporting the ACLU and the NRA? That would seem to cover the bases nicely for you.

The ACLU does many good things in protecting your civil rights. Things like protecting your right to free speech, your right to be protected against unreasonable search and siezure, your right to peacefully interact with society without fear of retribution for your political, religeous, or social philospy. The list goes on and on. Yet you would deny them their legitimacy on the grounds that you disagree with their stance on a single issue. That stikes me as incredibly short sighted. What's wrong with supporting the ACLU and the NRA? That would seem to cover the bases nicely for you.

... include such lovely items as supporting the 'rights' of grown men to molest under-age boys (ie. NAMBLA). Yeah... you'll have to forgive me if I fail to become overly enthusiastic when the ACLU jumps on board these days.

Here's more info about ACLU's campaign to challenge new security laws, called Keep America Safe and Free

It's interesting to note their views that in order to keep America safe, you do not necessarily have to take away freedom.

More info about the controversial PATRIOT ACT.

Best of luck to him!

Here's more info about ACLU's campaign to challenge new security laws, called Keep America Safe and Free

It's interesting to note their views that in order to keep America safe, you do not necessarily have to take away freedom.

More info about the controversial PATRIOT ACT.

Best of luck to him!

No offense, but it blows my mind how relatively small the ACLU membership is. They address issues like this all the time and have a new action alert about CAPPS II which is related to this. Expect something from them about this soon.

After 9/11 it was interesting to predict what would go up more: votes for Republicans or ACLU membership. Both did, but one group is truly in need of smart, passionate people to fight crap like this. The democrats don't seem like they want to do anything critical of Bush (at least as a group) and SCOTUS just turned down a review of the secret wiretap court. (to their credit it may come before them after more appeals)

Related and thought-provoking salon editorial here.

Expect now all sorts of rumor and innuendo to be included, such as results of police activity spying on lawful political groups.

I would love more than anything for Penn & Teller's Bullshit to do a story entitled "Everything funds terrorism."

Their insights on topics from Feng Sheu and Bottled Water (easily one of my favorite episodes) are classic. They take the average urban myth (such as Chiropractics are actually doing you some good...not) and deconstruct it to shreds.

This is political BS and those who don't believe it have their head in the sand.

What's worse is this is just going to lead to more legislation taking away American Civil Liberties. I've got my ACLU membership card, do you?

here and here. And that's just in a couple moments spent searching on the ACLU's own site.

here and here. And that's just in a couple moments spent searching on the ACLU's own site.

• KKK Sues Pittsburgh Over Mayor's Refusal To Permit Peaceful Political Rally
• Acting on Behalf of KKK and its Opponents, MN ACLU Questions Delay in Rally Permit Applications
• ACLU Praises Cleveland Mayor's Support Of KKK's First Amendment Right to March

• KKK Sues Pittsburgh Over Mayor's Refusal To Permit Peaceful Political Rally
• Acting on Behalf of KKK and its Opponents, MN ACLU Questions Delay in Rally Permit Applications
• ACLU Praises Cleveland Mayor's Support Of KKK's First Amendment Right to March

• KKK Sues Pittsburgh Over Mayor's Refusal To Permit Peaceful Political Rally
• Acting on Behalf of KKK and its Opponents, MN ACLU Questions Delay in Rally Permit Applications
• ACLU Praises Cleveland Mayor's Support Of KKK's First Amendment Right to March