Hawaiians are Taking to the Streets and Exercising their First Amendment Rights
Driving up Daniel K. Inouye Highway on the Big Island of Hawai‘i at 4:30 in the morning is a sight few will forget: a silent, pitch-black road, with black lava and sparse trees. The dark air is a chilly 50 degrees. In our backpacks are packaged tuna, crackers, water, walkie talkies, and a voice recorder. However, the most important items are without a doubt our blue ACLU of Hawai‘i legal observer vests and first aid kit, which is stocked with goods like antacid (to rinse our eyes of pepper spray) and earbuds. Sitting in the car, we Sharpie the names of a friendly board member who promised to help bail us out on our arms. We take a deep breath. We are steps away from the largest, most controversial protest to hit Hawai‘i this century. We are heading to the tallest mountain in the world: Maunakea.
This marks the second week that hundreds of people — who call themselves “protectors” — are camping out at the base of the access road leading up to the summit of Maunakea to peacefully protest the planned construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope, known as TMT. While the ACLU of Hawai‘i takes no position on the TMT itself, our concern for the free speech rights of everyone and the cultural access rights of Native Hawaiians — strongly guaranteed in the Hawai‘i State Constitution — drive us to get involved.
To many activists, another telescope would mean further desecration to a mountain that is considered incredibly sacred in Hawaiian culture. It is thought to be where the genesis of the Hawaiian people took place — where the sky god, Wakea, met with Papa Hanau Moku, the earth goddess, and the two created the islands. Only the highest-ranking chiefs and priests were allowed on the mountain, which is also home to various cultural sites like a sacred lake.
Maunakea is also held in the public trust for future generations of Native Hawaiians. It is a place where traditional practitioners worship. Construction of TMT also means that the road leading up to the summit for heavy equipment, according to the University of Hawai‘i. Cutting off cultural access to the mountain could violate the Constitution of Hawai‘i.
This is the second time construction has been attempted for TMT. Original plans were halted in 2015 due to protests and court battles. A month ago, the second go-ahead for TMT construction was announced for July 15.
As protests began that Monday, the ACLU of Hawai‘i remained in close connection with our allies at the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, who led the main groups of legal observers. We sent over two separate teams of legal observers to assist in making sure that not only were the protectors allowed to exercise their right to free speech and their right to protest but that there was no law enforcement misconduct. We also sent law enforcement agencies a with recommendations on how they can protect the rights of the protestors while still maintaining public safety.
In the face of peaceful and organized demonstrations, last Wednesday Gov. David Ige signed an emergency proclamation allowing 80 National Guard soldiers to be deployed to Maunakea. That day, arrests occurred. About 33 kūpuna, or elders, who were blocking the road in an act of civil disobedience were uneventfully arrested after discussion with the leaders of the protest — in some cases the elders even embraced the arresting officers — and released soon after with a citation.
Officers from the state, Hawai‘i County, Honolulu County, and Maui County were on the scene. Some were in full riot gear, armed with tear gas, batons, helmets, and zip ties. Many were not wearing badges and/or nametags. While we were on the ground at the protests, we sent a letter to all of the police chiefs because officers present were removing their badges and refusing to give people their names — in direct defiance of the police codes of conduct. Some did not read those arrested their Miranda rights. The agencies deployed escalation tactics, such as a lining up in defensive positions in their riot gear.
Even before the protests started, there was word that the government had acquired an LRAD “sound cannon,” which has devastating effects and is intended for military use — not for peaceful protests. On July 10, we sent a demand to the Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources detailing these dangers and asking them to refrain from deploying it against protestors. We also asked them to reassure the public that it would not be used.
Currently, construction is at a standstill and all eyes are on Maunakea — and ours are especially vigilant. However long the protests on the mountain take place, we will be watching to ensure that no one’s rights are violated.
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.