Flag Amendment Close to Passage

Efforts to approve the first exception to the First Amendment appear perilously close to success. As early as June 27, the Senate is expected to vote on an amendment that will allow both Congress and the states to outlaw the burning of the American flag during protests. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning is a form of speech and, therefore, protected by the First Amendment. However, the House of Representatives has repeatedly approved a change in the First Amendment that would authorize laws against flag burning. The Senate has blocked the amendment so far, but the margin of victory has shrunk to the point where a single vote may determine the outcome. If the amendment passes, there is little doubt that it will be quickly ratified by the necessary number of state legislatures.

The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression (ABFFE) and other critics of the flag burning amendment have expressed concern that it will lead to the suppression of a legitimate if controversial protest tactic. We also believe that amending the First Amendment will create a precedent that makes it easier to pass subsequent changes, eroding the most important bulwark for free expression.

Opponents of the flag amendment should call their Senators in Washington immediately. Click here to find the telephone numbers for your Senators.


Government Drops Connecticut Library Case

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced on June 26 that the Justice Department is dropping its effort to force a Connecticut library to comply with a National Security Letter (NSL) that sought information about a patron's Internet usage. The ACLU had challenged the order on behalf of Library Connection, a consortium of 26 libraries. Library Connection challenged the order because NSLs are issued without judicial approval and are therefore subject to abuse. "We pursued this matter because librarians should protect the privacy of our patrons," George Christian, the executive director of Library Connection, said. "Everyone has the responsibility to make sure the government plays by the rules."

Earlier, ACLU had fought to lift the gag order that prevented library officials from talking about the case, arguing that they could contribute to the debate over the PATRIOT Act, which expanded the government's power to issue NSLs. The government finally agreed to eliminate the gag but not until after the passage of the PATRIOT re-authorization bill.  ABFFE joined the American Library Association and the Freedom to Read Foundation in filing an amicus brief in support of Library Connection.

Click here to read the ACLU press release.


Judge Declares PATRIOT Act Cannot Be Used to Censor Political Beliefs

In another victory for free speech, a federal judge declared on June 23 that the government cannot use the PATRIOT Act to deny visas to people whose political beliefs it disapproves of. Judge Paul Crotty ruled in a case involving a Muslim scholar, Tariq Ramadan, who was denied a visa to teach at the University of Notre Dame in 2004. The government alleged that Ramadan could be excluded under a provision of the PATRIOT Act that bars entry into the U.S. to those who "endorse or espouse terrorist activities." But Crotty said that the government had offered no evidence that Ramadan was a threat to national security. In the absence of such evidence, Ramadan should be allowed to enter the U.S. The government "may not invoke 'national security' as a protective shroud to justify the exclusion of aliens on the basis of their religious beliefs," Crotty said.

The case was filed by several groups, including ACLU and PEN American Center. Click here to read the PEN press release.