The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota is demanding that the Northfield School District stop filtering LGBT internet content on the district’s computers. Calling it unconstitutional, the group sent a letter to the district calling for a halt to the filtering as well as a data practices request to identify how the filters got put into place. The move is part of the ACLU’s broader “Don’t Filter Me” project to prevent filtering of LGBT content.

”LGBT youth face a lot of challenges growing up in today’s society. The websites that are being filtered by Northfield are important resources for LGBT teens to go to for support and help, it is unfortunate that they would block these sites,” said ACLU-MN attorney Teresa Nelson in a statement.

The ACLU received a tip from Northfield students that the computers were filtering LGBT resources. Northfield uses a software called Lightspeed which contains a filter called “education.lifestyles” defined as “Education about lifestyles — gay, lesbian, alternate.”

Already the campaign has been successful in getting those filters removed from a Kansas City school district, and the ACLU has identified filters in Virginia, Ohio and New Jersey.

“There is no legitimate reason why any public school should be using an anti-LGBT filter,” Joshua Block of the ACLU LGBT Project said. “This is not a case where overbroad filters are accidentally filtering out LGBT websites. These filters are designed to discriminate and are programmed specifically to target LGBT-related content that would not otherwise be blocked as sexually explicit or inappropriate. Public schools have a duty to provide students with viewpoint-neutral access to the Internet.”

The occasion: a bill designed to overhaul policies for handling criminal intelligence information by making it easier for law enforcement agencies to keep and share information about citizens.

Under the proposed legislation, intelligence data collected on individuals by law enforcement officers could be kept secret for a year. The information would then be made available to the target of the probe unless it meets a series of criteria related to the prosecution of potential crimes.

The legislation would also authorize law enforcement agencies to share intelligence data with other government officials — not limited to police officers — when necessary to protect the public.

The bill was drafted by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and is sponsored by St. Paul DFLer Rep. John Lesch (pictured). (A companion bill has been introduced by Sen. Don Betzold, DFL-Fridley.)

In introducing the measure, Lesch acknowledged concerns about civil liberties but argued that some form of legislation is necessary to regulate the sharing of such data.

“A version of this will happen in future years, if not this year,” he said. “I think it’s important that this discussion be had.”

But the proposed legislation has raised alarm bells among peace activists and civil liberties advocates. They fear that the bill is overly broad and would lead to widespread spying on law-abiding citizens.

Teresa Nelson, an attorney with the Minnesota chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that the legislation would allow law enforcement agencies to keep “political dossiers” on citizens, while only creating an “illusion of security.”

Bernie Hesse, an organizer with United Food and Commercial Workers Local 789, expressed a concern that labor unions would be targeted for engaging in nonviolent acts of civil disobedience, like walking picket lines.

“We’re afraid that we might be labeled as a criminal organization,” he said. “We’re very conscious of and appreciate the work that law enforcement agencies do, but we also don’t want to be restricted in some of the things that we have to do to bring about economic justice for workers.”

Retired FBI agent and veteran peace activist Coleen Rowley said that since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the government has been obsessed with collecting intelligence data.

“One of the false notions since 9/11 that leads to this massive intelligence collection has been the idea that we did not have enough dots,” she said. “The failure to connect the dots was the problem, not that there was not enough dots.”

The concerns are exacerbated because of prosecutions stemming from Republican National Convention, which was held in September. Law enforcement relied extensively on undercover informants to infiltrate activist groups and build criminal cases. The most notorious example is the case of the RNC Eight, who are charged with criminally conspiring to disrupt the four-day gathering.

For now the legislation isn’t going anywhere. Lesch acknowledged the concerns about the bill, and moved that it be laid over for further consideration. That motion was adopted unanimously.

The struggle to get cameras and new media in places where government gathers,  from the state Capitol to county board rooms, is hampered by case law that, in its outlook on technology, is sometimes stuck in the 1970s.

The ACLU-MN is looking at the current ban on online-only media from the floor of the state House of Representatives, the source of a slow-burn dispute that got white-hot this week when new House rules — largely withdrawn, apparently — threatened the working ways of long-established media outlets.

The mediums of video and the Internet are following in the the hard-won footsteps of radio and television in gaining access to government, Nelson said.

The civil liberties group understands the legislature’s problem of limited space on the House floor, Nelson said, but wants to see neutral criteria for the granting of press credentials. Also at issue is a ban on cameras in House committees for all but credentialed journalists.

Case law offers mixed lessons for media access to government meetings, according to Nelson. “The courts draw a line between video- and audio-taping” — a line that she guessed may date to days when video equipment filled a room instead of a iPhones and BlackBerries.

The organization has taken a position on a conflict in St. Louis County, where county commissioners object to videotaping by a watchdog group. In a Feb. 10 letter to the county board (pdf), Nelson wrote:

The [Minnesota Open Meeting Law (OML)] protects access to government meetings for both the general public and the news media. … Implicit in the public’s right to attend government meetings is the right to record those meetings.

In the case of the county board, no official recording is made of its workshop meetings. It’s different at the state Capitol, where the Legislature offers its own video feed.

“If official recordings [are provided] then interests [of those seeking the right to record] are less,” Nelson said. However, the official Capitol feed provides video from only one legislative venue at a time, as reporters reminded a House staffer who called a clear-the-air meeting with media Monday.

The “forum doctrine” recognized by courts interpreting the federal Constitution’s First Amendment defines public forums as spaces like public parks. Under the doctrine, rooms where elected officials make decisions are non-public forums, where greater limits are allowed.

(While the First Amendment says Congress can’t restrict free speech, the Minnesota Constitution specifically guarantees free speech rights to citizens.)

But restrictions at government meeting places must be neutral as to the identity and content, Nelson said. That means, for example, that partisan trackers should have the same rights as citizens and journalists to wield HandyCams at House hearings.

“It’s one thing to have the Legislature preserve decorum inside a hearing room, making sure there are not disruptions and allocating space in an evenhanded way,” Nelson said. Rules that apply only to one kind of media, on the other hand, seem to represent “another way for restricting how material is going to be used.”

Now the Bloomington City Council is poised to dive back into those same waters. On Sunday, Bloomington got authority from the state Legislature to impose new sales taxes that would help fund a planned Mall of America expansion. And Monday night the Council adopted new restrictions on public assemblies, in anticipation of Republican National Convention protests that could spill from St. Paul into Bloomington’s streets, hotels and the environs of the mall itself.

Minneapolis attorney Marshall Tanick tells Minnesota Monitor the convergence of new protest regulations and another round of public investment at the Mall of America may reopen issues that seemed settled after the State v. Wicklund opinion. Tanick has written frequently about the specialized field of mall law, most recently in Minnesota Lawyer, where he compared the Wicklund case to a December 2007 California Supreme Court ruling permitting public protests in malls. Along with residents of other states where courts rulings have diverged from Wicklund, Californians, he concluded, enjoy far broader free-speech rights in their shopping malls than Minnesotans.

Steven P. Aggergaard, another local attorney, delved deeply into the question of free speech in publicly funded, privately owned spaces in a 2006 law review article. He thought he saw light shining through the seeming wall the state Supreme Court erected with its Wicklund opinion. He agreed with the trial judge that the state constitution seems to offer protections for speech in places built using public funds – particularly speech directly tied to the political process, as demonstrations during the Republican convention likely would be.

“Nice try,” says Sandra Johnson, the associate city attorney in Bloomington, who prosecuted the case against the fur protesters in the 1990s and drafted the new public assembly ordinance for the city. She finds Aggergaard’s arguments “wishful thinking” and takes pride in the unanimous Wicklund ruling for which she argued. A self-professed free-speech geek whose job obliges her to approach the issue from the side of the regulators, Johnson said that beyond providing for public safety, the proposed ordinance is intended to eliminate opportunities for city staffers processing parade permits to impose arbitrary costs or free-speech limits on particular applicants.

Teresa Nelson worked on a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the protesters in the Wicklund case as a new lawyer with the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union. Now the staff attorney for the renamed American Civil Liberties Union – Minnesota, Nelson found fault with the new Bloomington ordinance as originally proposed and met with Johnson last week to suggest changes. The new version is “greatly improved,” she told Minnesota Monitor before the Bloomington City Council acted Monday, but still vulnerable to constitutional challenge on two points: requiring applicants to indemnify the city against harm, and giving the police chief the discretion to require applicants to obtain insurance for their planned events. Even if city officials have the best, most unbiased intentions, Nelson says, an insurance company could easily require certain groups to pay more for coverage. And some courts haven’t been sympathetic to the kinds of exemptions the ordinance offers for religious, educational and government applicants.

The Bloomington City Council voted 6-1 Monday to approve the revised permit requirements Johnson proposed, but not before making further changes, including several sparked by Council Member Amy Grady. Her vision of a simple, 52-mom, anti-war demonstration hit by high permit fees, insurance requirements and failing those, misdemeanor charges, seemed to turn council opinion. They removed the insurance (though not the indemnification) requirement, dropped the penalty to a petty misdemeanor, and made the protest permit fee $15 instead of $60.

Continued: Click “Read More”Background: The Wicklund case

The 10 or so fur protesters arrested for urging shoppers to boycott Macy’s inside the Mall of America just before noon on May 19, 1996, got more attention than they could have imagined. Hennepin County District Judge Jack Nordby rejected a motion from their attorney, Larry Leventhal, to dismiss trespass charges. But Nordby did so with a 62-page ruling asserting that the Minnesota Constitution protected their right to protest in a public place that had received significant public funding.

His unusual treatise on Minnesota’s higher standard of protection for free speech prompted an unusual pre-trial appeal from the prosecution and ultimately resulted in the unanimous ruling by the state Supreme Court that rejected Nordby’s argument and returned the case to his court. In his verdict at the trial shortly thereafter, Nordby lambasted the Supreme Court, and nine years later the high court’s slap still burns him. “It was a terrible, dishonest opinion that misrepresented my argument and the state constitution,” Nordby said Sunday in an interview. Leventhal, who defended the 1990s mall protesters pro bono, likewise told the Minnesota Monitor he found the Wicklund opinion “very disappointing” because it “circumvents the rights of free speech. Citizens should be able to share in the benefits if governments erect alternative Main Street areas” — such as the Mall of America.

Leventhal’s arguments lost in the state Supreme Court — resoundingly — and protesting without private permission inside the Mall of America remains illegal. But two stops up the Hiawatha Light Rail Transit Line from the mall, another privately owned public square has sprung up since the Wicklund case: a development called Bloomington Central Station. Government provided $3.5 million of the $4 million that went into the centerpiece of the 50-acre mixed-use development: a 1.9-acre, privately owned and operated plaza. Bloomington retained an easement to use the plaza as a public park. Indeed, the city’s Web site describes Bloomington Central Station Park, which opened last June, as “a public park featuring seating areas, garden rooms, water walls and fountains, paved and lighted walkways, and public art,” and Bloomington’s park and recreation department is sponsoring a public concert series there this summer. Earlier planning documents blurred the public and private to pitch the project promising a “central open plaza/park that democratically allows tenants to leverage this special asset” with “a ‘living street’ similar to a plaza or town square.” Both attorneys — Bloomington’s Nelson and ACLU-MN’s Johnson — found the prospect of applications for public assemblies there intriguing from a free-speech standpoint.

With all the legal and linguistic line-blurring it’s not surprising that, as urban expert Judith Martin observes, most Americans are confused about what is public space and what is not, and where their free-speech rights seem to apply. (Martin, who chairs the urban studies department at the University of Minnesota and long served as president of the Minneapolis City Planning Commission, testified as an expert witness in the Wicklund case.) The trend among governments and developers, Martin told the Minnesota Monitor, is “to reduce the possible spaces where that kind of perceived freedom is actual freedom.”
]]> http://minnesotaindependent.com/3965/public-funds-private-mall-expansion-rncs-approach-may-re-open-free-speech-question-at-moa/feed 0 http://minnesotaindependent.com/3917/rnc-protests-st-paul-police-lay-out-parade-route-for-opening-day-of-convention http://minnesotaindependent.com/3917/rnc-protests-st-paul-police-lay-out-parade-route-for-opening-day-of-convention#comments Wed, 14 May 2008 23:21:29 +0000 Paul Demko http://www.minnesotaindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=3917 The St. Paul Police Department issued a detailed permit today laying out the parade route that protesters will be allowed to utilize on the opening day of the Republican National Convention. Marchers will be…]]>

The St. Paul Police Department issued a detailed permit today laying out the parade route that protesters will be allowed to utilize on the opening day of the Republican National Convention. Marchers will be permitted to walk from the Capitol down Cedar St., proceed across 7th St. toward the Xcel Energy Center, and then circle back on a triangle of streets adjacent to the convention location.

“We believe we have struck that difficult balance that we’ve been looking for between free expression and safety and security,” assistant chief Matt Bostrom, who is overseeing RNC security, told reporters at a press conference this afternoon. “I believe it’s unprecedented access to the event.”

According to Bostrom, protesters will not be segregated from the Xcel center by barbed wire, as was the case at the Democratic convention in Boston four years ago. “If there is something there it would be a material that you can see through and you can hear through,” he said. “And we’re not going to mess with that.”

The assistant chief also insisted that parade security will be no different from other large gatherings in St. Paul. “Unless we get some confirmation that there are people in that route who have ill intentions, we’re going to staff this the way we normally staff parades,” he said.

The city issued a preliminary parade permit to the Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War in March, but the authorization lacked specific details on when and where protesters would be allowed to gather. The coalition filed a lawsuit against St. Paul in U.S. District Court, arguing that the vague parade terms violated the group’s constitutional rights. A hearing on the suit is slated for Friday.

It’s unclear what impact the newly issued permit will have on the litigation. “I don’t know,” Bostrom said when asked about the lawsuit. “As you probably understand, I can’t comment on that.”

Lawyers for the protest group raised a couple of remaining issues with the new permit. Bruce Nestor said his clients have concerns that the parade route will not physically accommodate all of the protesters and that they will be required to pass by the Xcel Energy Center no later than 2 p.m.

“They believe that will segregate the marchers from the majority of the delegates, the main activities of the day, as well as really segregate the marchers from the main media coverage in the evening,” he said. “The city is willing to grant freedom of speech to the Republican convention to disrupt traffic and put a considerable burden on the police. I think our clients believe that this is a grudging concession to the right of citizens to let their objections be heard.”

But according to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in March, the First Amendment rights of protesters are being unconstitutionally proscribed by St. Paul’s parade permit policies. Next week, U.S. District Court Judge Joan Ericksen is slated to hear arguments in the case filed by The Coalition to March on the RNC and Stop the War. The suit charges that the group’s free speech rights are being violated by the city’s refusal to issue a parade permit laying out exactly when and where the protesters will be allowed to march on the first day of the convention.

The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction ordering the city to issue a permit immediately, along with a ruling that St. Paul’s current policy is unconstitutional and therefore invalid. The city is seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed and denies that its guidelines run afoul of the Constitution.

St. Paul issued a “conditional alternative permit” to the group in March, but it lacks explicit guidance on when and where the protesters will be allowed to assemble. Assistant Police Chief Matt Bostrom, who is overseeing security for the convention, has promised to supply a detailed permit by the end of this month that will allow protesters to gather within “sight and sound” of the Xcel center.

But organizers are skeptical of that commitment. “We’ve heard a lot from the city about what they plan on doing,” says Teresa Nelson, an attorney with the Minnesota Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union who is working on the case. “Time really is of the essence.”

St. Paul Police Department spokesman Tom Walsh says city policy is not to comment on pending litigation. “It’s a legal action against the city,” he notes. “We can’t say anything.”

This is so far the only lawsuit pending relating to RNC protest activities. But the ACLU and other concerned parties are closely monitoring the actions of surrounding municipalities. Earlier this week, the city of Bloomington postponed voting on a beefed-up protest ordinance after the civil liberties group wrote a letter questioning the constitutionality of the proposal. On Wednesday, the Minneapolis City Council debated an essentially voluntary protest permit policy, whereby groups would be encouraged to notify the city about large demonstrations, but wouldn’t be subject to any penalties if they fail to adhere.Four years ago in Boston, protesters at the Democratic National Convention were assured that they would be permitted to assemble within earshot of the FleetCenter. But organizers discovered just a week before the convention was slated to begin that the “demonstration zone” was to be a fenced-in area surrounded by razorwire that more closely resembled a prison courtyard. A federal judge, John Woodcock, described it as a “grim, mean, and oppressive space,” as well as an “offense to the spirit of the First Amendment.” But he declined to legally mandate changes to the arrangement because there wasn’t sufficient time to come up with a safe, viable alternative.

Lawyers for the St. Paul protest organizers fear that they will get caught in a similar legal limbo. “When the city says we’re using the Boston model, to me that’s delay, delay, delay until it’s too late for a court to vindicate First Amendment rights,” Nelson says.

The SPPD’s Walsh believes the Boston analogy is wrongheaded. “We have assured them that no later than May 31st there will be a parade route,” he says. “I just don’t think there are parallels.”

The litigation has brought forth some interesting nuggets of information about planning for the convention. In an affidavit, Bostrom states that the Police Department will supplement its force of approximately 600 officers with an additional 2,500 cops from various law enforcement agencies during the four-day gathering.

The city attorney’s office also submitted a legal exhibit featuring protest plans drafted by the activist group Students for a Democratic Society. Dated March 28, the document lays out designs to blockade the Xcel center, immobilize buses, obstruct area bridges–and ultimately shut down the RNC. “I’m not exactly sure what their motives are in providing that information,” says Nelson. “That kind of caught my eye.”

Nelson insists her clients plan to protest Republican policies and the war in Iraq through legal and nonviolent actions. “We’ve always been kind of frustrated that the City has not been more forthright and willing to work with this group that clearly does not want to engage in illegal activity,” she says.