Whether you’re a member of the ACLU, the Tea Party, or the Beer Lovers Party, one of the things that distinguishes you from people living in more authoritarian regimes — Iran, China, Libya, to name a few — is your right to form political associations without fear of government reprisal.
Freedom of association is so vital to our democracy that the framers put it in the First Amendment, alongside freedoms of speech, press, religion, and petition. After all, what good is the right to speak, pray, or petition the government if you can’t freely associate with other people who support your cause?
Defending that right for all Americans is why the ACLU today is filing a lawsuit in federal court in Boston on behalf of a 24-year-old computer programmer and Cambridge activist named David House. The case challenges the government’s targeting and suspicionless search and seizure at the border of David’s computer and camera, which occurred as a result of his association with the Bradley Manning Support Network.
Please note that by playing this clip You Tube and Google will place a long-term cookie on your computer. Please see on their website and on theirs to learn more. To view the ACLU's privacy statement, click here.
The Bradley Manning Support Network, which David helped to create, is a group of people and organizations who advocate for the legal defense of Pfc. Bradley Manning — the soldier who was charged and subsequently held in solitary confinement for allegedly accessing and disclosing a video and documents about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the website WikiLeaks.
Although the Support Network engages solely in lawful and constitutionally protected advocacy, members of the group have apparently been targeted by the Feds for exercising the right to free association. David has been visited by agents from the FBI, Department of State, and the military — who repeatedly question him about his political beliefs and associations. Then, last November, — this time by two Homeland Security agents — who not only questioned him again about his political beliefs, but seized his laptop, flash drive, and video camera — all without David’s consent and without any reason to believe a search would turn up evidence of wrongdoing.
What kind of information was on David’s laptop? There were email messages to and from family members and friends, messages concerning David’s employment, records of his personal finances, his computer programming work, and passwords to his bank account and other secure websites. There also was information about the Support Network, including mailing lists, confidential strategy memos, and lists of donors and potential donors.
Simply put: the government seized information about David’s lawful associations without reasonable suspicion. That’s when the ACLU stepped up in defense of both David and the Constitution.
demanding the return of David’s equipment and requesting that any copies of David’s personal information be deleted. Of course, by then, seven weeks had transpired — plenty of time for the folks at Homeland Security to make and disseminate copies of David’s personal information. They did not address David’s request that the government delete all copies of his data and clarify whether Homeland Security had shared his data with other agencies.
challenging the government’s assertion that it can seize, search, copy and disseminate information seized from a personal computer or other electronic devices without a reasonable basis for suspicion. The lawsuit asks that the court “Declare that the prolonged seizure of [David’s] laptop computer and other electronic devices and the review, copying, retention and dissemination of their contents without reasonable suspicion violates the Fourth and First Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
The case is important not only for David and others in the Support Network, but for all Americans who care about democracy. After all, the Support Network is just the latest in a long and noble American tradition of creating lawful “legal defense committees” to ensure the due process rights of all Americans — check out the if you don’t believe me.
The lawsuit also challenges the notion that the government has unbridled power to search the personal effects and papers at the border of individuals and groups who are engaged in legal and protected political activity — simply because the government doesn’t like one cause or another. The landmark Supreme Court ruling on point arose at the height of the Civil Rights Movement in 1958. The case, , involved an effort by officials from Alabama to force the disclosure of the membership list of the NAACP in an effort to run them out of the state. The Supreme Court ruled, 9-0, that such intimidation tactics are unconstitutional on the grounds of freedom of association and due process.
In retrospect, it seems obvious that the government was wrong to use intimidation tactics like seizing the membership lists of the NAACP to intimidate political activists in the civil rights movement. The political landscape and technology have changed dramatically since 1958. But defending freedom of association remains as important to defending 21st century democracy as ever.
Learn more about free speech: Subscribe to our newsletter, , and .
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.