In 2006, before M.I.A. was , the U.S. government actually denied her a visa to enter this country to work on an album. The reason she was kept out? The lyrics to some of her songs were considered sympathetic to the Tamil Tigers and Palestinian Liberation Organization.
M.I.A. is one of many luminaries in the fields of art, music, literature and academia who have been kept out of this country on ideological grounds. This practice is called "ideological exclusion," a Red Scare-era policy that former President Bush revived in the wake of 9/11. You can learn more about the other prominent people who have been kept out of the U.S. on ideological grounds by checking out our Flash feature, found at www.aclu.org/passportflash.
Yesterday, the ACLU was before a federal court in Boston arguing against the exclusion of Adam Habib, a prominent South African scholar who was denied a visa and is barred from attending speaking engagements in the U.S. Currently Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Research, Innovation and Advancement at the University of Johannesburg, Professor Habib is a world-renowned researcher, political commentator, and an expert on issues of democracy, governance, race, and South African politics, public policy, and social movements. Professor Habib has also been a vocal critic of various aspects of U.S. foreign policy, including the war in Iraq.
Although he was a frequent traveler to the U.S. and earned his PhD. from an American university, Professor Habib’s visa was revoked without explanation when he arrived at John F. Kennedy Airport in October 2006. As a result, Professor Habib was unable to attend scheduled meetings with U.S.-based scholars and representatives from U.S. and international agencies, universities, and foundations. In October 2007, the State Department denied Professor Habib's application for a new visa. The State Department claimed that Habib is barred because he has "engaged in terrorist activities," but refused to explain the basis for this accusation or provide any evidence to support it.
We believe they denied Professor Adam Habib a visa not because of his actions, but because of his vocal criticism of U.S. foreign policy. His exclusion violates the First Amendment rights of organizations such as the American Sociological Association and the American Association of University Professors that have invited him to speak at conferences in the United States. Last December, Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the court had the power to review Professor Habib's exclusion and that the government must justify its exclusion of Professor Habib. Thus far, the government has refused to do so.
The court issued two rulings yesterday. First, it rejected the government's argument that the plaintiffs were not injured by Professor Habib’s inability to attend their conferences and events and ruled that the plaintiffs had a right to come to court to complain about the government’s exclusion of Professor Habib. Second, rather than decide the merits of the case immediately - as the ACLU had urged - it will allow a period of factual discovery, in which each side discloses facts to the other. We welcome the opportunity to probe even deeper into the government's shameful practice of ideological exclusion.
In March, the ACLU and a coalition of free speech organizations sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder calling on them to end the practice of ideological exclusion. Join us, won't you? and tell them to stop excluding ideas at the border.
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.