If you were surprised to see the ACLU heralding the civil liberties imperatives of „vaccine mandates” and „vaccine requirements” — whereby the government coerces adults to inject medicine into their own bodies that they do not want — the New York Times op-ed which the group promoted, written by two of its senior lawyers, was even more extreme. The article begins with this rhetorical question: “Do vaccine mandates violate civil liberties?” Noting that „some who have refused vaccination claim as much,” the ACLU lawyers say: “we disagree.” The op-ed then examines various civil liberties objections to mandates and state coercion — little things like, you know, bodily autonomy and freedom to choose — and the ACLU officials then invoke one authoritarian cliche after the next (“these rights are not absolute“) to sweep aside such civil liberties concerns:
Civil liberties advocates on Wednesday cheered as Maine enacted what that state’s ACLU chapter called „the country’s strongest statewide facial recognition law.“
The FBI must be more transparent about its ability to break into people’s mobile devices, the American Civil Liberties Union says, and the group is suing for information about what the feds have in their toolkit.
The ACLU says the bureau should come clean about what its Electronic Device Analysis Unit (EDAU) is using “to unlock and decrypt information that is otherwise securely stored on cell phones.”
The report finds that fatal shootings by police are so routine that, even during a national pandemic, with far fewer people traveling outside of their homes, police have continued to fatally shoot people at the same rate so far in 2020 as they did in the same period from 2015 to 2019.
“The findings of this report show that police violence in our country is not situational, but rather endemic to our country’s policing institution. Despite a once in a lifetime public health crisis that has upended societal norms and caused a decrease in physical interaction, police still manage to kill people at the same rate as before the outbreak of COVID-19,” Paige Fernandez, policing policy adviser at the ACLU, said in a release.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation of Oregon called on a federal court on Tuesday to hold federal agents in contempt for alleged attacks on journalists and legal observers at protests in Portland, Ore.
A pair of Oregon state lawmakers joined with a local lawyer, church, and advocacy group on Tuesday to bring yet another lawsuit against federal government agencies over President Donald Trump’s ongoing militarized crackdown on Black Lives Matter protests in Portland.
Federal law enforcement officers have used unmarked vehicles to detain protesters in Portland, according to news reports and at least one protester who spoke to USA TODAY.
Videos shared online show officers driving up to people, detaining them without explanation, then driving off, Oregon Public Broadcasting first reported. The ACLU filed a lawsuit Friday evening to try and end what it called „lawlessness“ on the streets of Portland.
“DHS and DOJ are engaged in acts that are horrific and outrageous in our constitutional democratic republic,” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D) said. “First, they are deploying paramilitary forces with no identification indicating who they are or who they work for. Second, these agents are snatching people off the street with no underlying justification.
The ACLU and other civil rights groups filed a motion adding Police Chief Peter Newsham and other officers to the suit, alleging D.C. officers joined federal law enforcement agents in forcibly clearing the square ahead of President Trump’s photo-op outside of St. John’s Church.
A coalition of civil rights groups including the ACLU of the District of Columbia is suing President Donald Trump, Attorney General William Barr, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, and other federal officials over the brutal police assault on peaceful demonstrators near the White House Monday that cleared the way for the president’s photo-op at St. John’s Episcopal Church.
n a federal lawsuit, the groups asserted that U.S. and military police officers’ use of horses, batons, shields and riot control agents — including pepper spray, smoke canisters and rubber or plastic projectiles — violated largely peaceful protesters’ constitutional rights of free speech and assembly 30 minutes before a citywide curfew took effect Monday.
The suit — which also names Attorney General William P. Barr as a defendant — was brought by the ACLU of the District of Columbia, the Washington Lawyers’ Committee and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
The American Civil Liberties Union and Black Lives Matter L.A. have filed a lawsuit against local political and law enforcement leaders, calling for an end to the „draconian curfews“ imposed as largely peaceful protests continue throughout Southern California.
“This ruling means hundreds of thousands of Floridians will be able to rejoin the electorate and participate in upcoming elections,” said Julie Ebenstein, senior staff attorney with ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “This is a tremendous victory for voting rights.”
Indeed, this would help address serious concerns among the public that civil liberties are at a heightened riskduring this time of crisis. This is an acute concern for the many groups that the FBI has wrongfully targeted in thepast, including activists, communities of color, and the press.With ample support for this measure secured in the Senate, the decision to seize this moment in defense ofAmericans’ civil liberties is exclusively in your hands.
“Do we want to live in a police state or a free society? It is crazy to see how much power the government is grabbing a hold of in such a short period of time.”
“This isn’t the first time that local law enforcement has sought to use technology that was originally developed for the military in war zones abroad,” Ashley Gorski, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project, wrote in an email. “But the Constitution clearly prohibits the use of these spy planes against Americans here at home.”
The two groups, Fight for the Future and Demand Progress, on Tuesday launched a crowdfunding page to raise money for the billboard, which would go up in Schiff’s California district.
Donald Trump must do right by Carter Page and all Americans by telling Congress to reform our surveillance laws to better protect civil liberties.
The ad will air through Friday and is part of a six-figure, multistate TV and digital ad campaign to urge Trump and Congress to enact broader surveillance reforms.
Congress has until March 15 to reauthorize, reform or end three expiring provisions of the USA Freedom Act, a 2015 law that overhauled the post-9/11 Patriot Act.
A federal court in Boston has ruled that warrantless U.S. government searches of the phones and laptops of international travelers at airports and other U.S. ports of entry violate the Fourth Amendment.
Tuesday’s ruling in U.S. District Court came in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation on behalf of 11 travelers whose smartphones and laptops were searched without individualized suspicion at U.S. ports of entry.
Facial recognition technology has been shown to disproportionately misidentify people of color. In a 2018 American Civil Liberties Union study, Rekognition incorrectly matched 28 members of Congress, including Markey, to a database of 25,000 publicly available arrest photos.
10.6.2019 – Under FBI guidelines, agents can open an assessment without any fact-based suspicion whatsoever. Even preliminary investigations may be opened only in cases where there is mere “information or allegation” of wrongdoing, which the FBI interprets to cover mere speculation that a crime may be committed in the future. Thus, even if the FBI strictly adhered to its internal policies, they would still have broad discretion to use face recognition without a warrant or probable cause, making the technology even more susceptible to widespread use and abuse.
Die Verhaftung des Journalisten und WikiLeaks-Herausgebers Julian Assange in der ecuadorianischen Botschaft in London am Donnerstagmorgen stößt weltweit auf Empörung.
Any prosecution by the United States of Mr. Assange for Wikileaks’ publishing operations would be unprecedented and unconstitutional, and would open the door to criminal investigations of other news organizations. Moreover, prosecuting a foreign publisher for violating U.S. secrecy laws would set an especially dangerous precedent for U.S. journalists, who routinely violate foreign secrecy laws to deliver information vital to the public’s interest.
March 8 – June 2, 2019
As the ACLU gets ready to turn 100, join us on the road.
Engage with the biggest fights for freedom now. Walk through groundbreaking interactive exhibits. Meet leading activists in civil rights. Amplify your voice and connect with others who share a desire to create a more just society.
The ACLU, along with a coalition of public interest groups, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Greenpeace and its partners and the individual Standing Rock protesters. We argued that Energy Transfer’s claims violate the First Amendment, which prohibits companies from suing critics out of existence just because their message is anathema to the corporate interests of the plaintiff. We also told the court that the RICO Act can’t be manipulated and exploited to suppress constitutionally protected speech.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on Thursday filed a lawsuit against seven federal agencies, intending to obtain information on how the government surveils social media. The suit seeks to compel the agencies to turn over documents related to communications with social media platforms and the guidelines they use.
On Wednesday, attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a motion to unseal a secret court ruling in a case involving the Department of Justice and Facebook, stemming from a California case in which the FBI wanted to force the social network to wiretap phone calls on Messenger.
The American Civil Liberties Union slammed Jeff Sessions Wednesday moments after he resigned as attorney general at the request of President Trump, calling him the “the worst attorney general in modern American history.”
An American illegally detained in Iraq by the U.S. military for more than a year has finally won his freedom.
On Sunday, after a long court battle, the Trump administration let our client go. Under a settlement agreement, he was released in a third country, where he will once again be a free man. Parts of the agreement are confidential, and he is officially remaining unidentified for his safety and privacy.
Wendy Kaminer’s criticism, published in the Wall Street Journal, is different from those challenges to our work. Her critique is predicated on a fundamental misrepresentation. She falsely accuses the ACLU of having secretly changed its policy regarding free speech — and of launching an investigation to determine who “leaked” the “secret” document that she claims reveals this asserted change in policy. In fact, the ACLU remains fully committed to defending free speech as the document she cites – our guidelines for case selection — expressly reaffirms. That document does not change our longstanding policies and has never been secret.
Wenn die ACLU Free Speech nicht mehr verteidigt, ist das glaube ich bald vorbei damit in den USA. Ich habe die immer sehr respektiert für ihre knallharte Prinzipientreue. Mir fällt keine andere Organisation ein, die so berechenbar und verlässlich war wie die ACLU an der Stelle.
Wenn man relativiert, in welchen Fällen Grundrechte verteidigt werden, sind es halt keine Grundrechte mehr. Sondern eher so temporäre Leihgaben des Königs, der es sich jederzeit anders überlegen kann.
A new report details how local officials can create publicly owned internet programs that not only protect free speech and privacy, but also are accessible and affordable