“If you’re to be called a communist every time you stand up for basic American rights and freedoms, what’s likely to happen? Will you be silent? And if so, is this what the House Committee on Un-American Activities is really after — a silent, submissive, un-protesting America?”
-Ernest Besig, “Operation Correction,” 1961
Fifty-five years ago this January, the ACLU of Northern California was busy filling orders from across the country for copies of its recently produced film, “.” The film was a response to a piece of Red Scare propaganda, “Operation Abolition,” which was produced by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and depicted civil liberties activists in San Francisco as violent “communist agents” bent on destroying the fabric of America.
In those days, the federal government was deeply concerned with the political affiliations of ordinary Americans — if those affiliations were left-leaning.
My own grandfather, who was a World War II veteran and affiliated with the Communist Party in San Francisco, was under FBI surveillance. In 1950, he from a good union job at a glass company after FBI agents paid his employers a visit and informed them of his history as a labor organizer before the war.
Our family bounced back, but the government’s post-war obsession with leftist thought and activism ruined the lives of .
Leading the charge was HUAC, which investigated suspected communists. Professors, teachers, journalists, writers, filmmakers, and activists all came under deep scrutiny.
In 1960, HUAC came to San Francisco. They subpoenaed 48 Northern Californians — many of them teachers and professors — to testify at City Hall about their political affiliations. At this point, the tide of public opinion was already starting to turn against HUAC.
College students from UC Berkeley and Stanford mobilized to and take a stand for freedom of speech and freedom of association. The hearings, the protests, and the violent police crack-down were covered heavily by local news.
Demonstrators outside of the San Francisco city hall. Credit: SAN FRANCISCO HISTORY CENTER, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY.
Inside City Hall, witnesses were called to testify — several of them represented by the ACLU. While the hearings dragged on, the San Francisco Police Department used firehoses to knock protesters down the marble steps of City Hall. Scores were arrested and charged.
The San Francisco Police Department turned fire hoses on student demonstrators and dragged them down the steps of City Hall and out to police paddy wagons.
Through manipulative editing and voiceover narration, HUAC’s “Operation Abolition” used real news footage to portray the student activists as violent and dangerous “hardcore Communist agents” and “indoctrinated and trained dupes.”
In this moment, the ACLU of Northern California saw an opportunity to educate the public about the danger HUAC posed to American ideals of freedom, democracy, and dissent.
While “Operation Abolition” was being viewed by millions of Americans at town halls and colleges across the country, the ACLU produced “Operation Correction.” Our executive director at the time, Ernest Besig, narrated the exact same footage and explained the propagandistic tactics being used to mislead the public.
People flocked to see it. In Berkeley, hundreds showed up for a standing-room-only “Operation Correction” event. Copies were distributed nationwide and even shown on TV in Alaska, Texas, and Kansas.
Newspapers like The Washington Post editorialized on the success of the film and the dangers of government propaganda.
Historians credit HUAC’s “Operation Abolition” with backfiring spectacularly. Young people across the country were shown the film at school, saw right through it, and decided they should make their way to Berkeley — after all, that’s where all the action was. Four years later, the UC Berkeley Free Speech Movement began.
Let’s remember this moment in history as a lesson in the power of free speech and free thought. And let’s remember it as proof that if we remain vigilant, lies can wither in the face of truth.
In the wake of an election season marked by fake news, open distaste for journalism, and a president-elect who during a nationally televised debate, let’s not shy away from reflecting on our government’s willingness to engage in cynical propaganda.
Our 45th president will soon be inaugurated. We will likely see hundreds of thousands of people protesting Donald Trump’s presidency and his proposed policies in cities across the country. It’s crucial for people to know and understand their First Amendment .
In 1962, the ACLU had to have a ground-game to distribute “Operation Correction.” Today we can all voice our dissent at lighting speed to a digitally networked world. The ACLU will remain vigilant in the months and years to come. We also are ready to defend your right to document injustice, speak your mind, and tell your own stories.
Please keep it up.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.