ACLU of Pennsylvania Sues City of Philadelphia Over Free Speech Restrictions During DNC
PHILADELPHIA — The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania filed a federal lawsuit against Philadelphia today against on behalf of the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign, a social justice coalition that was denied a permit to hold a march downtown during the Democratic National Convention.
“We are filing the lawsuit today because the last thing that poor people have is their voice, and we can't allow our voice to be taken away,” said Cheri Honkala, head of PPEHRC.
“We are outraged that we have been denied our rights to march. Dr. Martin Luther King said it best: ‘the greatness of America is the right to protest for rights.’”
PPEHRC applied for a permit to march from City Hall to the doorstep of the DNC on July 25, the official opening day of the convention, to confront the Democratic Party leadership with the continuing failure of the government to address the suffering of poor people. The time and the route was chosen to enable their message to be seen and heard by the greatest number of visitors and Philadelphians, and marchers would reach FDR Park approximately the same time that the DNC formally starts inside the Wells Fargo Center.
The city of Philadelphia refused to issue a permit for the march because it would fall within the city’s unwritten ban on marches in Center City streets during the hours of 7 to 9 a.m. and 3 to 6 p.m. However, according to the complaint, the city routinely authorizes extended street closures on Center City streets during this time on weekdays, as evidenced by a list on the city’s own . This past spring, the city has closed Center City streets during so-called rush hour for victory parades, block parties, and restaurant events.
The city also routinely allows protests in Center City during supposed “rush” hours at the discretion of the police. The refusal to grant a permit, however, leaves protesters to take their chances on whether the police will stop or allow their protest.
The complaint argues that the city cannot give block parties and celebrations more access to the streets than is given protest groups, and that barring any street protests for five hours out of every weekday is an unjustified restriction on protest.
“Political conventions are a time when the nation’s attention is focused on the problems facing our country. It is vital to our democracy that there be every opportunity for public participation in that national conversation,” said Reggie Shuford, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania.
PPEHRC and thousands of poor residents of the city marched peacefully from City Hall to the Wells Fargo Center on the opening day of the Republican National Convention in 2000 along the same route.
PPEHRC is a multi-racial, intergenerational movement made up of poor, low-income, and homeless families across the country. It is organized around the universal declaration of human rights and is dedicated to taking up where Dr. Martin Luther King left off on building a poor people's movement. Its goal is to eliminate poverty.
A copy of the complaint is available here:
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.