In yet another ACLU victory over the governmentâs repeated attempts to censor the Internet, a federal three judge panel struck down the Childrenâs Internet Protection Act (CIPA), a law that would have forced libraries to deny adults and minors access to constitutionally protected speech online in order to receive crucial federal funding. The judges agreed with arguments made by ACLU and the American Library Association (ALA) that the mandated blocking programs cannot effectively screen out only material deemed "harmful to minors."

CIPA, a federal law passed in December 2000, tied crucial library funding to the mandated use of blocking programs on Internet terminals used by both adults and minors in public libraries. The governmentâs appeal of this decision will go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The lead plaintiff in the ACLUâs legal challenge is the Multnomah County Public Library. Library Director Ginnie Cooper and ACLU of Oregon Board member Candace Morgan, a librarian with Fort Vancouver Public Library and chair of the ALAâs Freedom to Read Foundation, were the lead witnesses at the week-long trial last February. Their testimony was crucial in educating the judges of the essential role libraries play in our democracy by providing the public unfettered access to information. 

The rights to assemble and protest are cornerstones of our democracy. The ACLU has filed a friend of the court brief in the Oregon Supreme Court arguing that Oregonâs disorderly conduct statute is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. We argue that the law does not give reasonable notice of conduct that is prohibited but gives police unbridled discretion to arrest political protestors. The name of the case is State of Oregon v. Ausmus, et al. ACLU cooperating attorneys Les Swanson, Alia Miles and Jonathan Ater prepared the ACLUâs brief.

Gender Discrimination: In April of this year, the ACLU filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit in Oregon seeking equal treatment for girlsâ competitive softball in city-owned sports facilities in Grants Pass. The case, Ashley Bellum et. al v. City of Grants Pass, is being brought on behalf of a group of girls ages 8 to 18, who compete in the Amateur Softball Associationâs Grants Pass Blaze softball league.

At issue is the cityâs failure to give the girlsâ softball teams equal access to quality facilities at the All Sports Park in Grants Pass. The complexâs six diamonds are the primary venue for practices and games of the communityâs four youth baseball and softball programs. The city has dedicated the two playing fields of the highest quality to the exclusive use of the two boysâ baseball leagues.

This practice, the ACLU lawsuit charges, violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as a state constitutional guarantee that government will not discriminate on the basis of gender. The lawsuit also cites violation of an Oregon law that provides for equal access in public accommodations.

The City of Grants Pass quickly agreed to an interim settlement for the Spring/Summer 2002 softball season negotiated by U.S. Magistrate Thomas Coffin. We are hopeful a permanent, long-term solution can be reached with the city. This lawsuit is a joint project of the ACLU of Oregon, ACLUâs Womenâs Rights Project and ACLU of Southern California. Jim Dole of Grants Pass is the ACLU Foundation of Oregonâs cooperating attorney. Rocio Cordoba, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California, is co-counsel on the case and brought a similar case in 1999, Baca v. City of Los Angeles. Lenora Lapidus also is co-counsel in the case and is the Director of the ACLUâs Womenâs Rights Project.

The legal complaint is online at www.aclu.org/court/bellum.pdf.

A fact sheet on gender equity in girls' community softball programs is online at www.aclu.org/news/2002/GrantsPass_facts.pdf.

Our two lawsuits challenging Boy Scout recruitment in Portland public schools are making progress. The first case (arguing that the practice violates the separation of church and state) is before the Oregon Court of Appeals pending a decision. The second case (arguing that the school district commits religious discrimination by allowing the Boy Scouts special access during the school day) is pending review in the Court of Appeals, after the trial courtâs decision in our favor. An important factor in the trial court judgeâs decision was consideration of valuable evidence regarding the psychological impact a schoolâs choices can have on impressionable young students. This was evidence the Superintendent of Instruction chose to ignore when it was presented during the administrative processing of our clientâs complaint. Dr. Harold Boverman and Lorah Sebastian, PhD. generously provided expert witness testimony for free to the ACLU. The ACLU cooperating attorneys in Powell I are Andrea Meyer (now on our staff, but a volunteer when the case started) and Paul Meyer. Our cooperating attorney in Powell II is Ken Wittenberg.

Exclusion Zones: In September 2002, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled in State of Oregon v. Lhasawa that the City of Portlandâs civil exclusions from city designated prostitution free zones (PFZ) are permissible under the state and federal constitutions. Defendant Lhasawa had been arrested for soliciting prostitution and was issued a 90-day exclusion from entering the cityâs PFZ. While the ordinance does provide a means for receiving a variance to enter the PFZ for certain reasons, violations of the exclusion order can lead to arrest for criminal trespass.

The question before the Oregon Supreme Court was "whether a criminal prosecution on the prostitution charges of a person who already has been excluded from a PFZ · subjects that person to former or double jeopardy." The ACLU Foundation of Oregon filed an amicus brief with the court arguing that the exclusion process was only nominally a civil proceeding and that the court should view the exclusion as a form of punishment related to a criminal proceeding. ACLU and counsel for the defendant further argued that by punishing a person with an exclusion order the city could no longer prosecute the individual for the underlying prostitution charge, because to do so would place the individual in "jeopardy" a second time for the same offense. Article I, Section 12 of the Oregon Constitution and the Fifth Amendment of the federal Bill of Rights protect individuals from multiple punishments arising from the same criminal offense.

The Court admitted that while being excluded "from a part of the city is some restraint on personal liberty," it rejected arguments that the exclusion was a form of banishment. The Court likened the civil exclusions to "·restraining orders·aimed at preventing violence and disorder, rather than at punishing past crimes."

Since the adoption of this ordinance in 1991, the ACLU has argued that several aspects of the drug free and prostitution free zones are in conflict with civil liberties. ACLUâs main concern has been the extra-judicial nature of the exclusions because police officers are given broad authority and discretion to slap individuals with exclusion orders without a conviction. ACLU has long argued that an exclusion could be imposed by a court as a condition of a pre-trial release but we are wary of the seeming disregard for maintaining checks and balances between the executive enforcement branch and judicial branches of government this ordinance creates. The civil ordinance creates an end-run around the due process procedures required in a criminal procedure. However, this issue was not before the Court in the Lhasawa case. ACLU cooperating attorney Chin See Ming prepared the ACLUâs amicus briefs on this issue in the Oregon Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.

While we are disappointed with the courtâs decision, we will continue to look for ways to change those aspects of the ordinance that are most offensive to civil liberties.