* Forwarded (from: INETMAIL) by Terry Liberty-Parker using timEd 1.10+.
* Originally from ACLU Newsfeed Owner (1:382/87) to terry liberty-parker 
(1:382/804).
* Original dated: Wed Jan 22, 19:19
From: ACLU Newsfeed Owner 
----------------------------------------------------------------
01-22-97
ACLU Newsfeed -- ACLU News Direct to YOU
----------------------------------------------------------------
TODAY'S NEWS:
Sender: owner-news@aclu.org
Precedence: bulk
* Reno v. ACLU Update: Government's Brief Asserts Unprecedented Powers 
   To Criminalize Online Speech
* Catherine Weiss Named Director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project
* Maine Group Seeks Vote on Gay Marriage
* Child Support Lapses Could Lead To Loss of Licenses in North Carolina
* Los Angeles Tops in Telephone Taps
* Baby Boomers 'Just Say No' To Prosecuting Doctors Over Medical Marijuana
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reno v. ACLU Update 
Government's Brief Asserts Unprecedented Powers
To Criminalize Online Speech;
Court Sets Oral Argument for March 19
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, January 22, 1997
NEW YORK -- After reviewing the Justice Department's brief on the
Communications Decency Act filed late yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court,
the ACLU said that the government is seeking unprecedented powers to
criminalize speech on the Internet.
The ACLU said that the government's 55-page brief inReno v. ACLU  is "at odds with the extensive
factual findings of the trial court," which ruled last June that censorship
provisions of the CDA unconstitutionally restricted free speech. 
"The government's arguments, if adopted, would justify blanket censorship not
just on the Internet, but in traditional forums such as libraries and
bookstores," said Christopher Hansen, an ACLU national staff attorney on the
Reno legal team. 
Further, he noted that the government's brief makes the astounding claim that
it is protecting the First Amendment by censoring free speech on the
Internet, asserting that a fear of encountering "indecency" online could
deter potential users from exercising their First Amendment interest in
accessing the new medium.
"It is supremely ironic that the government now says it is protecting the
First Amendment rights of Americans by threatening people with jail for
engaging in constitutionally protected speech," Hansen said 
The kind of "indecency" identified by government witnesses in the lower court
included words and images displayed online by organizations such as the ACLU,
Planned Parenthood, Stop Prisoner Rape, Human Rights Watch and Critical Path
AIDS Project, all plaintiffs in Reno v. ACLU, Hansen  said. 
The Supreme Court announced today that it would hear oral argument in the
case on Wednesday,  March 19, at 10:00 a.m.   Each side will be given a
half-hour to present their arguments.  According to the briefing schedule set
by the Court, plaintiff's answering briefs are due on February 20. The
government's final, or reply brief, is due on March 7.    
In addition to the government's brief, three sets of plaintiff groups filed
friend-of-the-court briefs on Tuesday in support of the government's
position: Enough is Enough (along with eight other plaintiffs), Morality in
Media, and a group of members of Congress led by former Senator J. James Exon
(D-Neb.), who sponsored the Communications Decency Act.
<Constitution Hall>Spotlight on the Issues)  or at the HREF="http://www
.aclu.org">ACLU's Freedom Network on the Web (http://www.aclu.org).>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Weiss Named Director of the 
ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, January 22, 1997
NEW YORK -- The American Civil Liberties Union today marked the 24th
anniversary of Roe v. Wade by naming Catherine Weiss as director of the
ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project.  She will be responsible for overseeing
the ACLU's legal, advocacy, and public education work on reproductive rights.
The announcement was made by Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU's national legal
director.  "Catherine is a seasoned litigator who brings a sharp mind, a
clear voice, and a broad vision to the pro-choice movement," Shapiro said. "I
am confident that she will be an effective leader in forging new victories
and beating back anti-choice restrictions."
According to Weiss, she is assuming the directorship at a time when the
struggle to defend and advance reproductive rights requires more energy and
resources than ever before.
"When the ACLU argued and won Planned Parenthood v. Casey in the Supreme
Court in 1992, pro-choice Americans sighed in relief, believing that the
right to choose was once again secure," Weiss said. "But in reality Casey was
only a partial victory.  Women in this country still have a right to make
their own decisions about their pregnancies, but states have more and more
latitude to restrict access to abortion."
"One of our top priorities this year will be to fight proposals to
criminalize late-term abortion procedures that can be essential to the lives
and health of women facing catastrophic pregnancies," Weiss added. "In
addition, we will continue to represent individuals and families who have
turned to the ACLU for help when the government intruded into their most
personal and intimate decisions."
Weiss has been the Project's litigation director since 1992.  She is a
champion of the rights of low-income women and teenagers who have been the
objects of the most persistent attacks on reproductive choice.  She has
served as lead counsel in cases aimed at restoring public funding for
abortions under state constitutions, protecting minors' right to confidential
abortions, and defending against attacks on minors' access to contraception.
 She was closely involved in shaping ACLU strategy on federal legislation,
including the Freedom of Choice Act and the Freedom of Access to Clinic
Entrances Act.
Weiss graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton University in 1981.  She
received her M.A. in political science from Yale University in 1984, and her
J.D. from Yale Law School in 1987.  Prior to joining the ACLU in 1988, she
clerked for Judge Alvin B. Rubin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.  She has also worked at various times in her life as a counselor in
an abortion clinic, a freelance writer, and a teacher.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maine Group Seeks Vote on Gay Marriage
PORTLAND, ME -- The group behind a 1995 ballot measure that would have
restricted gay rights in Maine now says it has enough signatures to put a
proposal before the Legislature to ban same-sex marriages, the Portland Post
Herald reports.
Concerned Maine Families said that it will submit petitions and 62,157
signatures to the secretary of state today. That's about 11,000 more than the
number required for a citizens' initiative to go before lawmakers, according
to the Herald. 
But Patricia Peard, the president of the ACLU of Maine, told the Herald that
it may not be as simple as a change of wording. 
States ''don't dishonor each others' marriages,'' said Peard, who is also a
family law specialist at the firm of Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer and Nelson.
Marriage laws already vary greatly from state to state, yet marriages are
recognized everywhere, she said. 
Peard likened the situation to state laws in the South which for generations
banned interracial marriages. Eventually, those laws were ruled
unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, she said. 
''Gay people live together now in what amounts to same-sex marriages, and I
haven't seen heterosexual marriages falling apart,'' she said. 
Gov. Angus King said he won't make a decision on whether he would veto or
support the Concerned Maine Families' proposal before it reaches his desk. 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Child Support Lapses Could Lead To Loss of Licenses in North Carolina
DURHAM, NC -- Local officials here will start enforcing a recently passed
state law that allows drivers' licenses to be taken from those who are more
than 90 days behind in child support payments, the Herald Sun reports.
Professional licenses -- such as those with which people from lawyers to
beauticians to house movers do business -- also can be revoked under the new
law. The machinery for revoking professional and drivers' licenses is
different, however. While professional certificates may be yanked without
court action, it will take the nod of a District Court judge for someone's
driving permit to be taken away.
Some defense lawyers have begun blasting the new law as unfair and perhaps
even unconstitutional. The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina
stands guardedly behind this point of view, the Herald Sun said.
"I think it is very suspect constitutionally," lawyer Tom Loflin of Durham
told the paper.
"What is the nexus between a driver's license or a professional license and
the assumed evil that this law is aimed at?" Loflin asked. "Of course, it's
an evil not to support one's child. But what is the nexus between driving
safely and supporting one's child? There is none. 
"It makes no rational or reasonable sense to me," Loflin added. "To me, it
borders on being arbitrary and capricious. It offends the Constitution. Why
do we allow other people to drive who do things we don't like? What about
drug sellers? You have to fashion a remedy that fits the offense -- not
punish people in all kinds of ways that don't make sense."
Deborah Ross, executive director and legal director of the ACLU of North
Carolina, told the Herald Sun that there are "serious legal questions"
wrapped up in the new law. 
But Ross conceded that drivers' licenses -- unlike some professional licenses
-- are subject to relatively easy seizure because high courts have declared
they are not "property."
Still, Ross agreed with Loflin that the new law is "constitutionally
suspect."
But she added, "I don't know if it will be facially unconstitutional, or if
it will just be unconstitutional in selected cases. I don't think it's a
clear-cut, slam-dunk thing."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles Tops in Telephone Taps
LOS ANGELES -- Law enforcement officials in Los Angeles County are among the
nation's leaders for tapping telephone lines, the Associated Press reports.
According to statistics released by the FBI, investigators from local, state
and federal agencies operating within the county placed an historical high of
1,080 taps on phones between Jan. 1, 1993 and March 1, 1995.
By contrast, AP said, there were 452 wiretaps placed in Dade County Florida,
which includes Miami, during the period and 252 in Cook County, Illinois,
which includes Chicago. The report did not say what types of investigations
were involved, or why the number of taps was higher in some areas than
others.
Ramona Ripston, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of
Southern California, told the AP that she was "shocked" that Los Angeles
County would have such a high rate of electronic surveillance.
"I can't understand why we would be more surveyed than any other place,''
Ripston said. "I don't think Los Angeles is any hotbed of crime or any
illegal activities of any type or people planning subversive activities.''
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baby Boomers 'Just Say No'
To Prosecuting Doctors Over Medical Marijuana
As the debate over the medical uses of marijuana continues across the
country, members of USA Today's "Baby Boomer Panel" sounded off on the
subject recently. With very few exceptions, panelists said doctors should be
able to recommend marijuana to relieve pain and to treat medical conditions.
Panelist Sarah Hartstein, a pediatric nurse, said early in her career she saw
teens hospitalized with terminal cancer benefit from using marijuana to
control nausea from chemotherapy.  "It was years ago and may have been
experimental," she said.  "Nobody said anything.  The patients seemed to
think it was helpful."
Another panelist, Steve May, said the issue has been given impetus by the
AIDS crisis.  "More than 150 of my friends have died from AIDS.  I am
strongly in favor of the medical use of marijuana to help those patients with
the disease and their reactions to its treatment," he said.
But doctors now face criminal penalties if they attempt to ease their
patients' symptoms by prescribing marijuana.  
Last week, a group of physicians and patients represented by the American
Civil Liberties Union and others filed a class action suit in federal court
in San Francisco, seeking an injunction blocking federal officials from
taking any punitive action against physicians who simply recommend the
medical use of marijuana to their patients.
The lawsuit is a direct response to the Clinton administration's December 30
announcement of its plan to fight implementation of Proposition 215 by
threatening doctors with a range of punishment if they are found to be
--- 
--- timEd 1.10+
---------------