Update (1/17/17): The Obama administration announced the commutation of Chelsea Manning’s sentence for disclosing classified information that raised public awareness regarding the impact of war on innocent civilians. Manning will reportedly be freed in May 2017.
This morning, that Chelsea Manning is on President Obama’s a commutation of her sentence. Chelsea in November, urging the president to commute her sentence to time served and give her a chance “”
With nine days left in office, action by Obama may be Chelsea’s last chance for survival.
Seven years into her 35-year sentence, Chelsea has already served longer than any person in United States history for disclosing information to the news media. The information she disclosed served a clear public interest, helping raise awareness regarding the impact of war on innocent civilians.
Nonetheless, she pled guilty to many of the charges brought against her hoping for leniency in her sentencing — leniency that she never received. Instead, she endured torturous conditions of solitary confinement for 11 months during her pretrial confinement at Quantico, received an egregiously long sentence, and then was sent to an all-male facility. To add insult to injury, the prison denied Chelsea treatment for her gender dysphoria, even though the military’s own doctors diagnosed her as such as far back as 2010.
In the past six months, after years of fighting just to be treated as a human being, after being humiliated in the military under policies like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the ban on open transgender service, after surviving homelessness and discrimination in her youth, Chelsea has attempted to end her life twice. Her well-being was when she faced punishment for her desperation and was sent to solitary confinement for attempting suicide in July.
Her trauma is escalating; her life is in danger. President Obama is likely the only person who can save her. Though her appeals are ongoing, the process is slow. Though she has received some medical treatment, much critical care remains withheld. The future is uncertain, and our chance to save Chelsea’s life is now.
Chelsea is not asking for a pardon. She takes and always has taken full responsibility for her actions. As her in clemency application:
“I take full and complete responsibility for my decision to disclose those materials to the public. I have never made any excuses for what I did. I pleaded guilty without the protection of a plea agreement because I believed the military justice system would understand my motivation for the disclosure and sentence me fairly. I was wrong.”
More than most people, Chelsea believes in our country, in our systems of justice, and in our ability to correct course when we act against our ideals. At 22 years old, she acted in what she believed to be the public’s great interest. She acted so that we might have a greater understanding of our government’s actions in our name far away from home. She acted in accordance with her conscience. And for that, she has paid a horrible price.
Chelsea has faced solitary confinement. She has been denied health care. She has had medically necessary treatment withheld. She has faced the perpetual indignity of being subjected to male grooming and hair standards and held in an all-male facility as a woman.
Chelsea is not yet 30 years old and her prospects for surviving another year are grim.
She needs a commutation of her sentence by President Obama. Her life depends on it. We are watching and hoping and fighting for her.
#FreeChelseaNOW
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.