Irish Rendition Activist to Attend Accountability Conference in North Carolina
This week, as the ACLU welcomes our clients Professors Adam Habib and Tariq Ramadan to the United States — scholars who, until recently, were barred from entering the country because of their criticism of U.S. policy and who will be speaking to audiences in New York today and tomorrow — we also celebrating the news of another almost-excluded scholar being granted permission to enter the country.
Dr. Edward Horgan is a well-known Irish activist who served as an Irish Defense Force officer for 22 years. He has also worked as the International Secretary of the , was a United Nations peacekeeper and an international election monitor in countries like Ghana, Armenia, Zimbabwe, East Timor and Ukraine. Dr. Horgan also happens to be an outspoken critic of the U.S. practice of extraordinary rendition, and cofounded an organization called , which has the use of Shannon Airport in western Ireland as a stopover for U.S. rendition flights.
Dr. Horgan was set to speak at an taking place this week at Duke University called "." Organized by a coalition of human rights groups, including , the conference will convene legal experts (including the ACLU's very own ), human rights activists, journalists, religious leaders, academics and health care professionals to explore how to push for accountability for extraordinary rendition in North Carolina locally and regionally in an effort to push for accountability on the federal level.
On March 15, a North Carolina reported that the U.S. government revoked Dr. Horgan's 10-year, multiple-entry visa without explanation, even though he had visited the United States just last year to see family and to attend the presidential inauguration. Like Professors Habib and Ramadan, it seemed that Dr. Horgan was being targeted because of his ideas; specifically, his strong criticism of torture, rendition, and arbitrary detention.
Several congressional offices in North Carolina and Massachusetts joined private groups and citizens across the country in protesting Dr. Horgan's exclusion. In North Carolina, Reps. David Price and Mel Watt and Sen. Kay Hagan were helpful in making inquiries with the State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Dublin. The balance appeared to tip, though, only when the and when started pouring in. In short, Dr. Horgan's exclusion, like the ideological exclusion of Professors Habib and Ramadan, started to look like a potential PR disaster for the United States:
Today, just one day before his scheduled departure for the United States, Dr. Horgan finally learned that he would be granted a new U.S. visa after all. He's packing his bags and heading for Shannon Airport — not to protest this time, but to board a plane bound for the U.S.
If you're in Durham, North Carolina, this week, the — with the participation of Dr. Horgan and ACLU attorney Steven Watt — is taking place on Thursday, April 8, through Saturday, April 10, on the campus of Duke University.
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.