In a new YouTube video released yesterday, Aundré Herron talks about why California’s death penalty has to go. As both a former prosecutor and murder victim survivor, Herron has a unique and incisive perspective on the death penalty, which she shared with the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice. Watch her testimony.

Herron commented that she empathizes with the desire to seek revenge, but still understands that the death penalty is broken and can never be fixed. Her testimony surprised the Commission and got members to take notice of the growing number of victim survivors who are speaking out against the death penalty.

At the hearing, several other murder victim family members spoke, explaining their stories and their reasons for opposing the death penalty. Among other things, they said that the death penalty does nothing to heal their pain and that it only diverts resources from programs that could help them, as well as from solving and prosecuting other serious crimes.

These stories and perspectives are included in a new publication, Voices from California Crime Victims for Alternatives to the Death Penalty.

The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice is preparing for its third and final public hearing on California’s broken death penalty, to be held March 28th at Santa Clara University. At hearings in January and February, the Commission heard about other problems with California’s death penalty, including racial and geographic disparities in death sentencing, the lack of well qualified defense attorneys, and the lack of transparency and accountability for local prosecutors. The Commission will hear evidence of further problems at its final hearing.

Today was a really good day for the First Amendment. And it was also a good day for our court system. From the very beginning of the argument over what should happen in the Wikileaks case, the judge made it clear that he took the Constitutional issues seriously, at one point reminding the lawyers for the Bank that he had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. In the end the Court not only dissolved the permanent injunction locking up the Wikileaks.org domain name, he also denied the Bank’s motion for a preliminary injunction that would have required Wikileaks either to take the documents down in their entirety or to redact (black-out) some of the information.

Although the process that led to the issuance of the first injunction was flawed, it was flawed because there was no one there to speak up for the First Amendment rights of the people who turn to the Wikileaks site as a valuable source of information. One of the lessons we all need to keep in mind from this experience is that there are “gate-keepers” on the internet, such as domain name registrars, who play a vital role in allowing information to flow on the internet.

When these gatekeepers get dragged into court as part of a dispute in which they don’t really have a stake, their main interest may be to avoid costly litigation. In order to avoid incurring those costs, intermediaries may not stand up for the important First Amendment rights of others that are at stake. That’s why Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is so important. It provides immunity to internet intermediaries when private parties try to hold them responsible for content on the internet that originates with a third party.

But sometimes, as in the Wikileaks case, we need something more, because those protected by Section 230 may not take advantage of that protection. We need organizations like the ACLU, EFF, the Project on Government Oversight, Public Citizen and the First Amendment Coalition - and individuals like University of Texas student Jordan McCorkle - who are willing to go to court and move to intervene in an ostensibly private dispute in order to make sure that the public’s right to know is protected. And we need organizations like the Reporters’ Committee for Freedom of the Press and the many media outlets who appeared as “amici curiae” (friends of the court) to make the case that the First Amendment does not allow court orders that silence publication on the internet, any more than it allows the silencing of traditional media. And that’s what happened today. The First Amendment advocates made their case and the Court listened. As a result, the public’s right to know and the press’ right to publish, including websites such as Wikileaks, remains protected.

Today was a very good day.

Check out this great New Yorker article that highlights how the ACLU’s work drastically improved conditions for children incarcerated in the Hutto immigrant detention center in Texas. Maybe one day the government will stop detaining innocent children all together.

At the center of the battle brewing in the House over the FISA reauthorization bill is telecom immunity. President Bush and his GOP cohorts have been pounding away this issue for weeks now, thinking the repetition will weaken the resolve of Democrats who have so far stood firm on not letting the phone companies off the hook for unlawfully spying on Americans.

Today, a plaintiff in one of the telco lawsuits, Peter Y. Sussman, editorialized in the Sacramento Bee about why he’s a plaintiff in the ACLU awsuit:

I and my fellow plaintiffs don’t stand to win any money through our lawsuit, much less billions of dollars, but we do hope to assure governmental accountability, to open to public scrutiny the actions of corporations and government that have teamed up to deny citizens the rights guaranteed by law.

…As a journalist working out of a home office, I communicate with many sources by telephone. I have written extensively on those most secretive of government institutions, prisons. Frequently, important revelations about the administration of prisons and the effects of our sentencing policies come to the public only because confidential informants risk their livelihoods to blow the whistle on corruption, incompetence and cruelty in these institutions. As a journalist, I can offer sources little more than the protection of confidentiality for their courage.

When you read Sussman’s story, it’s not hard to imagine how upsetting the thought of the NSA wiretapping your calls is. The ACLU and Sussman only ask that these cases are adjudicated before a judge, in a court. Not stopped in its tracks by the president and his telco-protecting cronies.

San Franciscans passing this billboard might think they are looking at a refreshingly honest company’s ad campaign. What they are really seeing is the handiwork of the Billboard Liberation Front, which declares in a press release that it’s celebrating “an extraordinary rendition of a public-private partnership.”

President Bush is resorting to scare tactics to push legislation that would broadly expand the government’s wiretapping ability and grant immunity to the companies that broke U.S. law in complying with his surveillance program. Naturally, he claims that these companies did not break the law-but still, granting them immunity is an “urgent priority.”

Meanwhile, members of the BLF have risked life and limb to bring a message and a smile to an American people sick and tired of fear-mongering.

Now, congressional leaders have to decide whose side they’re on-the President’s, or the people’s.

Image: BoingBoing

This has been an exciting week for women’s rights in the courts, a fitting lead-in to Women’s History Month, which begins tomorrow, March 1. In three victories this week, the ACLU Women’s Rights Project continued to chip away at the gender inequity that still plagues our society.

A Connecticut court ruling that a social club cannot exclude women from membership was a triumph for female business owners, who continue to struggle to break into the male-dominated business world, in which social connections are so crucial. Although many of these “fraternal” organizations have opened their doors to women, we continue to fight these battles state by state because the federal public accommodations law that prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, color, and national origin, does not extend this protection to women.

This week’s groundbreaking settlement between a domestic violence survivor, a private housing complex, and a property management company in Michigan was a major victory in the fight to end violence against women because a lack of safe housing is one of the biggest barriers women face when they are trying to escape abusive relationships. The management company’s agreement not to throw women out of their homes simply because they are victims of domestic violence and to allow victims to get out of their leases early and relocate for safety purposes was a commendable move that acknowledged that everyone, including private companies and landlords, must take responsibility for creating a world in which women can escape violence.

On Monday, a federal judge in Riverside, CA allowed Jameelah Medina to proceed with her lawsuit claiming that her religious freedom rights were violated when officers forced her to remove her hijab while in police custody. The judge’s decision affirmed an important civil rights concept: that coercion does not have to involve the use or threat of physical violence. The decision to allow Ms. Medina to proceed with her lawsuit was also a step towards affirming that Muslim women - who are uniquely visible and therefore targeted with anti-Muslim and gender-based discrimination - have the right to express their religious beliefs freely.

Women’s History Month is an opportunity to celebrate our triumphs, and also to re-dedicate ourselves to the ongoing struggle for gender equity. With these three successes, and through the work of women’s rights advocates around the country every day, we are steadily making history of violations of women’s civil rights.

Please visit our Women’s History Month page to learn more about the work of the Women’s Rights Project, current women’s rights issues, and what you can do.

The same day President Bush made another pitch for telecom immunity in the current FISA Bill before the House, Roll Call reported that the GOP is miffed that the President’s and House and Senate Republicans’ lobbying on behalf of the telcos isn’t raking in nearly enough love in the form of contributions to the party. The paper writes:

“GOP leadership aides are grumbling that their party isn’t getting more political money from the telecommunications industry.”

“…It’s quite discouraging,” said one GOP leadership aide, referring to the disparity in giving from the telecommunications industry in light of the FISA debate, but also the broader lack of support for Republicans from the business community in general.”

“…In a closed-door session earlier this week, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) exhorted his colleagues to get off their “dead asses” and start raising money for the party. Fully 142 of them have not yet pledged or contributed funds to the NRCC.

Incidentally, it’s Rep. Boehner who keeps trotting out the telcom lawsuits as a cash cow for trial lawyers line. We guess that’s his special method of fundraising: lying.

Roll Call points that only Sprint donates more to Dems than Republicans, and that “[t]he other three companies, AT&T, Verizon and Qwest, still give a majority to Republicans but by slimmer margins than in years past.” It’s worth noting that Qwest is not suspected of participating in the NSA wiretap program, and is not lobbying for telecom immunity in the current FISA legislation before the House.

Once again, President Bush expressed his desire to protect the interests of the telecommunications conglomerates over the constitutional rights of American citizens. At this morning’s press conference, he once again blamed House Democratic leaders for failing to pass the unconstitutional and broad Senate surveillance bill, which would not only allow the government to snoop on Americans’ emails and phone calls, but also protect law-breaking phone companies like AT&T and Verizon from lawsuits brought by their customers.

Customers entrusted these companies with their privacy rights when they signed their service agreements. Now that the phone companies have violated this trust, they’re begging President Bush to protect them from lawsuits. What’s most pathetic is that he’s actually doing the dirty work of telecommunications lobbyists. Doesn’t the President of the United States have anything more important to do than speechify for the telcos and make false claims about our national security?

How about restoring habeas corpus? How about closing Guantánamo?

One of our legislative consultants, Michelle Richardson, who’s on Capitol Hill every day working to persuade lawmakers to protect Americans’ civil liberties, put the whole situation in a perfect nutshell:

“President Bush’s concerns can only be taken as seriously as his actions. Let’s not forget the facts — the Protect America Act expired because he flatly refused to sign a second extension. House Democrats should be lauded for standing strong on their principles and supporting the Constitution. The president can’t have it both ways. He can’t dig his heels in and then complain that nothing is moving. The president will have to lie in the bed he made while he waits for Congress to finish its job.”

We’d also like to remind everyone that we’ve already responded to this ridiculous “financial gravy train” accusation that Bush and his cronies have levied against groups like the ACLU, who are leading the charge against the telcos’ lawbreaking.

CORRECTION: The second paragraph was changed to reflect an error. Phone company contracts reflect privacy guarantees between phone companies and their customers. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits government-conducted unlawful searches and seizures”.

Greetings from the Take Issue, Take Charge guest bloggers! We are writing from the ACLU of Pennsylvania’s Clara Bell Duvall Reproductive Freedom Project.

Marshall Bright is an undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania who was instrumental in raising awareness of the problems with abstinence-only education in her private, all-female high school.Stephanie Chando is a Master of Social Work Candidate at the Penn School of Social Policy and Practice who became interested in advocating for comprehensive sex ed after evaluating two sex ed programs in Trenton, NJ. Sarah Coburn is a recent graduate of Smith College and currently serves as Project Coordinator at the Duvall Project whose main focus is advocating for comprehensive sexuality education throughout Pennsylvania.

Together, we have taken issue with abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and are devoted to the advancement of comprehensive sexuality education.We’re eager to share our thoughts with you and openly welcome your comments:

The Philadelphia Inquirer recently reported on a high school in Mullica Hill, NJ, that is drawing criticism from concerned parents over their peer-education sex ed program. These parents have organized and even created a Web site for parents to sign a petition and get a look at the “very graphic” curriculum their teens are being subjected to. Some of the “disturbing” material chosen for its particularly lurid content, includes information on things that kids don’t know about (masturbation), things they should never know exist (condoms) and things they should never consider (tolerance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people).

Depressing and intolerant as that may seem, students and parents in other communities are taking positive steps toward education, such as a group of teens in Utah who lobbied their senators for full disclosure in sex ed.

In addition, not all parents are as reactionary as those few in Mullica Hill, NJ. In fact, some open-minded and involved parents are becoming advocates themselves, such as a group of parents in Pittsburgh who have started a petition for comprehensive sex ed. They are supported in their efforts by the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

In a warmer part of the country, Palm Beach County, FL, has realized that abstinence-only programming won’t help their state’s teen pregnancy woes; they are set to enact in April a sex-ed curriculum that teaches sixth graders about STD’s and seventh graders about condoms.

Peer education is taking off on the West Coast as well. In the San Fernando Valley, one program, Promoting Alternatives for Teen Health, is a peer-to-peer curriculum aimed mainly at poor Latinos. I wonder if the concerned New Jersey parents could look at the grim statistics on HIV infections and pregnancy rates amongst these teens and still insist they shouldn’t learn about condoms.

Another grim reason for increased sex education: unprotected oral sex may be more dangerous than originally thought. A recent study links unprotected oral sex to certain dangerous side-effects, including some rare throat and mouth cancers that previously were seen mainly in older heavy smokers. We can therefore expect to see such anomalous cancers in youth become more common if abstinence-only programs continue to preach a message where sex is shrouded in mystery and protection is never discussed.

While Muslim men have been vilified and targeted as terrorists in the current national security frenzy, Muslim women who wear religious headcoverings face unique exposure to prejudice because of their visibility. Their outward self-identification makes them vulnerable to both anti-Muslim bias and gender-based discrimination.

Jameelah Medina experienced this acutely when she was arrested in Pomona, CA on December 7, 2005 for having an invalid train pass. Ms. Medina, a devout Muslim, wears a hijab (headscarf) to cover her hair, ears, neck and part of her chest. During the car ride to the West Valley Detention Center, the arresting officer accused Ms. Medina of being a terrorist and of supporting Saddam Hussein. While Ms. Medina tried to calmly answer his questions about why she chooses to cover her hair, he yelled at her that Muslims are evil and that the United States was in Iraq at God’s direction to squash evil.

Upon arrival at the jail, Ms. Medina was forced to remove her hijab, despite her objections that she wears it for religious reasons. Like many Muslim women, Ms. Medina feels strongly that she must be covered at all times in the presence of men who are not members of her immediate family. Despite her repeated requests to keep her head covered during her day-long incarceration, she was forced to remain uncovered for much of the day, including in the presence of men she did not know, upon threat of having her processing and release delayed if she did not comply. She was released at the end of the day and was never prosecuted in connection with the arrest.

In December 2007 the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the San Bernardino County for violating Ms. Medina’s religious freedom rights. In an attempt to have part of the case dismissed, the county filed a motion alleging that Ms. Medina’s rights under state law were not violated because officers did not use or threaten physical violence in order to force her to remove her hijab.

On Monday, in a triumph for civil rights, United States District Judge Virginia Phillips issued an order denying the county’s motion, ruling that the coercion and intimidation that Ms. Medina says she experienced when the officers commanded her to remove her scarf and threatened her with delayed release from jail if she refused were clearly enough to support a claim under California civil rights law. The judge ordered the county, whose attorneys did not appear at the hearing, to file an answer to Ms. Medina’s complaint.