Trumbo, a documentary film released today, tells the story of blacklisted screenwriter Dalton Trumbo’s courage in resolutely refusing to name names before the House Un-American Activities Committee in the darkest days of the anti-Communist witch hunts of the 1940s and 50s. The film has great relevance for today’s troubled times, and serves as a powerful reminder of why principles matter and how the failure to abide by them can result in lasting damage.
Dalton Trumbo was one of the most celebrated screenwriters of his day. As one of the “Hollywood 10,” he refused to testify before the in 1947. For this, he was sentenced to prison and along with hundreds of other less famous workers in his industry was banned from employment in Hollywood for more than a decade.
The film is directed by Peter Askin and written by Trumbo’s son, Christopher Trumbo. Askin cast a set of leading film stars (Joan Allen, Michael Douglas, David Strathairn, Nathan Lane, Donald Sutherland and more) — to read from dozens of Trumbo’s remarkable private letters. He uses wonderful archival film clips and recent interviews to weave together a powerful tale and an important lesson from the McCarthy period.
The ACLU is grateful to be chosen as a beneficiary of a percentage of the proceeds of the film. It is a very generous gift on the part of the filmmakers, but I could only think that the award is being bestowed to a group whose record is “most improved.”
For in those troubled times, the ACLU was often much too timid, and at worst, conflicted and counterproductive. The debate within the ACLU in many ways mirrored the treacherous debate in Hollywood. Leading forces within the organization insisted that the protection of “national security” would provide the greatest protection for civil liberties. Although the ACLU helped to defend the Hollywood 10, the organization was still anxious to eschew any label as a “communist front” and even established an internal “loyalty oath,” a tool that some ACLU leaders believed would bolster the organization’s credibility and therefore allow it to be an even more effective defender of civil liberties.
It was a Faustian bargain. In hindsight, we know that it weakened our defense of the First Amendment at that critical time, and diminished the organization’s early legitimacy. It also created great dissent among some of the fledgling new ACLU affiliates. Fortunately, it did serve as a bitter lesson that helped forge the organization’s future role as an unrelenting advocate of civil liberties.
Fast forward through the next 50 years, and no one would suggest that the ACLU has been too timid or compromising. Especially during the past seven years as we have witnessed perhaps the greatest assault ever on civil liberties, the ACLU has responded with great clarity to White House threats and actions to limit civil liberties in the name of national security. The ACLU has not only risen to the challenge, but we have boldly fought back on every front during this similar period.
Perhaps no action has been clearer than the recent establishment of the John Adams Project, which provides direct representation to detainees facing prosecution at Guantánamo because of our grave concern that the military commissions process is an affront to justice. The ACLU believes that the military commission’s authorization of the use of coerced evidence possibly derived from torture, secret evidence, and hearsay is unconstitutional and counter to our constitutional traditions. This abuse of power requires our extraordinary leadership and effort. Clearly we have cast off the misgivings of the 1950s that kept less popular clients at bay.
Dalton Trumbo paid a very high price for adhering to his principles. The new film portrays well the havoc that was wreaked upon him, his friends and his family. It also shows how few were willing to stand with him during this perilous time and the bitter legacy when liberty is lost.
The film also underscores the vital role that the arts play in providing the narrative that brings these important principles to life. It is quite a moving experience to see some of today’s most celebrated actors read the stirring commentary of one of our most accomplished and persecuted writers.
In recognition of the importance of this platform, the ACLU has launched a new program, “Rights/Camera/Action,” which uses the arts and popular culture as a forum for civil liberties discussion with artists and entertainers to encourage deeper conversations that tap into our core civil liberties values.
Today as the ACLU marks its 88th year, it is a much wiser and stronger organization. We are proud and also deeply humbled — to be recognized by the makers of the movie Trumbo with their support of our essential work.
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.