ACLU Calls upon NC Department of Revenue to Respect the Privacy and First Amendment Rights of NC Consumers Who Use Amazon.com -- On April 21, 2010, in response to news reports concerning a state audit of online retailer Amazon.com, the ACLU of North Carolina called on the North Carolina Department or Revenue (NCDOR) to respect the privacy and First Amendment rights of NC consumers. According to a lawsuit filed by Amazon, compliance with the NCDOR’s demands would reveal the identities of hundreds of thousands of Amazon customers in North Carolina who have purchased more than 30 million lawful expressive works from Amazon since 2003 and would identify specifically which books, movies, music and other expressive works were purchased by which customers. The Complaint lists examples of books that North Carolinians have purchased, including books on such sensitive topics as bipolar disorder, living with alcoholism, infertility, and how to come out of the closet as a member of the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender community, as well as sensitive movies and works of music on controversial topics. For more information about the ACLU's concerns and our response to the NCDOR's request, click here.

ACLU-NC Legal Foundation Reaches Successful Free Speech Settlement in Lawsuit Against Wilkes County School Board on Behalf of Local Peace Activist -- On Tuesday, August 11, 2009, we reached a successful resolution of a four-year battle between our client, peace activist Sally Ferrell, and the Wilkes County Board of Education regarding Ms. Ferrell’s constitutional right to free speech in the Wilkes County high schools. Beginning in March 2005, Ms. Ferrell had sought permission from the school district to distribute information to high school students regarding alternatives to military service on the same basis and to the same extent as military recruiters were being allowed access to students for purposes of recruiting. Military recruiters had been granted access to students in Wilkes County high schools for some time, but the Superintendent and members of the Wilkes County School Board repeatedly refused Ms. Ferrell’s request to distribute literature and to speak with students. We intervened on Ms. Ferrell’s behalf, and for a short time, the school district allowed her to provide information to the students as a representative of N.C. Peace Action. Nevertheless, the Superintendent soon rescinded her access to the schools, and we filed a lawsuit in Wilkes County Superior Court on January 5, 2009. The parties met on Tuesday, August 11, 2009, and agreed to a settlement that would permit Ms. Ferrell and N.C. Peace Action to have access to Wilkes County high school students on the same terms and under the same conditions as military recruiters have, which is exactly what Ms. Ferrell has been seeking for more than four years. If the school district honors its end of the agreement, then the lawsuit will be dismissed.

To read a copy of the Wilkes County lawsuit and its exhibits, click here.

ACLU-NCLF Defends Free Speech Rights of Homeowner Against the Town of Cary -- On Monday, August 3, 2009, David Bowden, a Cary homeowner who is frustrated over a water-drainage problem he blames on a town road-widening project, hired a painter to spray-paint in florescent orange on his home’s exterior, “Screwed by the Town of Cary.” Consequently, town officials threatened to fine Mr. Bowden up to $500 a day for violating Cary’s sign ordinance. After hearing about this threat, we reviewed Cary’s sign ordinance and found that the ordinance is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. As such, we contacted the town attorney for Cary to express concerns. Nevertheless, on November 12, 2009, the Town served Mr. Bowden with another Notice of Zoning Violation, which informed Mr. Bowden that the Town would begin to fine him for his sign within seven (7) days of receipt of the notice. The fines would be as follows: $100 for the first day; $250 for the second day; and $500 for the third day and each day thereafter. In light of this threat, the ACLU-NCLF filed a Verified Complaint, a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the Eastern District of North Carolina on November 19, 2009. Chief Judge Flanagan held a hearing on our motions on November 23, 2009. As a result of that hearing, the Town agreed to enter into a consent order, prohibiting the Town from fining Mr. Bowden for his sign and prohibiting the Town from requiring Mr. Bowden to remove his sign while the litigation is pending.

Prisoner/Author Victor L. Martin – DOC Suppression of Prisoner’s Right to Write Fiction -- In 2007, the ACLU-NCLF received a complaint from an inmate at Central Prison named Victor L. Martin, a published author who has been punished and placed in segregation for writing novels for publication. The North Carolina Department of Correction (DOC) argued that Mr. Martin was and is operating a business while incarcerated, in violation of DOC policy. Prison guards also confiscated a 310-page manuscript from Mr. Martin’s cell. On May 21, 2008, ACLU-NCLF sent a demand letter to DOC, arguing that DOC is violating Mr. Martin’s First Amendment rights. On July 25, 2008, Assistant Attorney General Phil Allen sent us a letter advising us that DOC will continue to apply the “no business in prison” rule to Victor’s publishing activities. We sent a follow-up letter on August 12, 2008, in an attempt to clarify issues in dispute for litigation purposes, and we filed suit on February 3, 2009 in the Eastern District of North Carolina. On March 8, 2010, we announced the successful settlement of our lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Martin. Terms of the settlement include: (1) a new policy on manuscripts for all inmates in the DOC system, which permits inmates to publish, copyright and communicate about their work and allows inmates to be compensated for their manuscripts through a third party outside the prison system; (2) reimbursement of good time credits and fees assessed against Mr. Martin for violations of the policy; (3) $8,000 to Mr. Martin for the lost manuscript; and (4) $2,000 in attorney’s fees to the ACLU-NCLF.

Appalachian State University Trademark Policy – Censorship of Use of Any Term Related to ASU -- In September, 2008, the Appalachian State University (“ASU”) administration informed student groups of its new policy regarding the licensing of university-owned trademarks. Although the specific terms of the policy are unclear, the policy appears to prohibit any non-pre-approved use, whether commercial or non-commercial, of any term related to ASU. ASU does own several federally registered and state-registered trademarks, but the policy appears to extend to any term that “refers to” ASU, not just those in which it has a legally-recognized trademark interest. The ACLU Student Chapter of ASU disputed the university’s licensing policy as vague and overreaching after ASU required pre-approval for several different t-shirts. The ACLU student chapter cited potential implications of students’ First Amendment right to free speech. ASU’s administration declined to modify the policy, stating that the university had a right (and indeed a legal obligation) to police all uses of its trademarks, regardless of the purpose or character of the use. Of those marks that ASU is entitled to protect, its licensing scheme appears to lack both clear criteria for approving or denying applications and a speedy approval or denial process, likely rendering it an unconstitutional prior restraint under the First Amendment. On May 28, 2009, we sent a letter to ASU’s attorney, asking ASU to modify its trademark policy to conform with the law. On June 19, 2009, we received correspondence from ASU’s counsel, informing us that ASU agreed to revise its policy to protect the First Amendment rights of students. We continue to monitor this situation to ensure that the policy is being applied in a constitutional manner.

Wilmington Panhandling Ordinance -- On July 31, 2008, we were contacted by an individual who was given a citation for playing his saxophone on the street for money in downtown Wilmington. Officers cited the individual, Peter Barbeau, for violating Wilmington’s panhandling ordinance. On October 7, 2008, the Wilmington City Council declined to amend its ordinance to permit street music, and the district attorney declined to dismiss Mr. Barbeau’s citation. As a result, we filed a motion to dismiss the citation on October 16, 2008. On October 27, 2008, ACLU-NCLF Legal Director Katherine Lewis Parker represented Mr. Barbeau at the hearing on the motion to dismiss. The court agreed with our argument and dismissed the case, ruling that that ordinance is unconstitutional. The City Council has now amended its Ordinance to comply with the First Amendment.

N.C. State Bar's New Proposed Amendment to Ethics Rules Related to Expression of Bias by Attorneys -- In April 2009, we learned that the North Carolina State Bar was considering a revision to the preamble of the Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys that would add a new paragraph related to expressions of “bias or prejudice” on the part of North Carolina lawyers. Because we were concerned that the language was so vague and overbroad as to violate free speech rights under the First Amendment and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, we submitted a letter of concern on April 22, 2009 to the State Bar Ethics Committee, and Legal Director Katherine Parker attended the Committee meeting to express our concerns. We recently learned that the Ethics Committee decided to withdraw the proposed amendment.

Non-Profit Attorneys’ Authorization to Practice Law in North Carolina -- In December 2008, we were contacted by a senior staff attorney at a local non-profit, North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law (NCICL) (Justice Bob Orr’s group) after the North Carolina Attorney General’s office filed a motion to disqualify NCICL as counsel in a case that NCICL filed on behalf of for-profit medical providers. In the motion, the AG argued that NCICL cannot appear as counsel in the case as a result of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-5, which prohibits the practice of law by corporations in this State. The only statutory exception to N.C. GEN. STAT. § 84-5 was contained in N.C. GEN. STAT. § 84-5.1 which permitted nonprofit corporations organized pursuant to Chapter 55A for the exclusive purpose of providing indigent legal services to render such services. Consequently, Assistant Attorney General Mark Davis contended that § 84-5.1 did not apply to NCICL because (a) the Institute is not organized for the sole purpose of rendering indigent legal services; and (b) the Plaintiffs in this action are for-profit entities that have previously retained private counsel in this action. NCICL reached out to several NC and national non-profits, including ACLU-NC, asking that we submit a joint amicus brief in opposition to the State’s motion to disqualify. On December 30, 2008, the Legal Committee voted to join other non-profits in submitting such a brief, since an adverse ruling could potentially impact all non-profits representing non-indigent clients in NC, including ACLU-NCLF. The brief was filed on Friday, January 16, 2009. A hearing on the Motion to Disqualify was held on January 23, 2009. At the hearing, Judge Manning denied the motion to disqualify. However, rather than reaching the First Amendment argument that we advanced in our amicus brief, Judge Manning concluded that corporations and their employees can make any agreements they want with regard to whether the employee attorneys may represent outside parties – that is, if the corporation is okay with the attorney representing third parties, then so be it. However, Judge Manning agreed with the AG’s office that corporations themselves cannot practice law. This conclusion posed problems with regard to a non-profit’s ability to advertise its sponsorship of a case, as well with as with regarding liability insurance issues. Consequently, the coalition sought a legislative solution and was successful in getting a bill passed and signed by the Governor that protects a non-profit’s right to practice law in North Carolina. The Governor signed the bill into law on June 24, 2009.

NC State Vet Student Disciplined for Posting On Her Personal Facebook Page -- In February 2009, we received a request for assistance from a student at the vet school at North Carolina State University, who posted a status update on her personal Facebook page in which she said “I think it is ironic that TAU breeds their poor quality mares for a ‘learning experience’ when there are so many unwanted horses being slaughtered.” “TAU” is the teaching animal unit at NC State’s vet school. This student’s Facebook page is published only to her “friends,” one of whom printed out this student’s page and showed it to the head of TAU. The head of TAU then threatened to bring the student before the Faculty Committee on Academic Performance and Student Conduct for “slander” and “behavior unbecoming of a professional.” On March 4, 2009, we sent a letter to NC State’s general counsel, stating that the professor appeared to be violating student’s constitutional protections under the First Amendment by (1) subjecting her to discipline for protected speech; and (2) retaliating against her for her statement. We noted that the student may also have a cause of action under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As expected, as soon as we intervened, the professor and NC State backed down.

NC State Free Speech Tunnel -- On the morning after Election Day 2008, four North Carolina State University students spray-painted racist graffiti in the “free expression tunnel” located on the NC State campus. Specifically, the statements found in the free expression tunnel on the morning of November 5, 2008 included “Hang Obama by a Noose” and “Let’s shoot that ni--er in the head.” Ku Klux Klan symbols were also found. Many African-American students were very frightened by the writings and were afraid to wear buttons supporting President-elect Obama to school on the day after Election Day, for fear that the statements were meant as a rallying cry for violence against African-American students. In response to the incident, the North Carolina Conference of the NAACP (NAACP NC), demanded the expulsion of the four students involved and also demanded the implementation of hate speech codes on all UNC-system campuses in North Carolina. We received requests for assistance from students concerned about the possibility of implementation of speech codes. Consequently, we sent a letter to President Bowles on the afternoon of November 25, 2008. On January 15, 2009, we spoke about our position before the UNC Study Commission formed to review student codes of conduct as they relate to hate crimes. Jennifer Rudinger attended another Commission hearing on January 26, 2009. On March 31, 2009, the Commission issued its findings, which recommended that “a University-wide policy be developed addressing hate crimes and acts of violence or intimidation.” The Commission further agreed that the recommendation should include protections of the constitutionally guaranteed rights of free speech and expression. We will continue to monitor this situation.

UNC Censorship of Employee Forum Insert -- Last year, we were contacted by members of the UNC Employee Forum for advice regarding the refusal of UNC-CH to include an article that the Forum submitted for publication as part of the July 2007 InTouch insert, a paid insert that is normally included in the July edition of the University Gazette. The article pertained to collective bargaining. The Gazette rejected the article submitted by Mr. Ghoshal, labeling the article an “opinion piece” and then apparently creating a new Gazette rule against publishing opinion pieces, even though it appears that the Gazette has published opinion pieces in the past. We have researched the facts and law surrounding this matter and believe that the University engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Consequently, we sent a letter to General Counsel for the University on August 8, 2008, suggesting that the Gazette print the article in a special edition of the InTouch insert. We also requested further information as to the Gazette’s editorial control over the insert. On August 29, 2008, we received a response from the University, arguing that all information in the Gazette constitutes government speech, and consequently, the University will continue to maintain editorial control over the content of the InTouch insert. On October 7, 2008 and again on November 10, 2008, we met with members of the Forum to discuss their interest in proceeding with more formal action. Members of the Forum are attempting once more to resolve this informally with the University before proceeding with litigation. On February 5, 2009, Chancellor Thorp sent a letter to Tommy Griffin, chair of the Forum, making an offer to resolve the matter informally, which includes the offer to set aside funds for the printing of a separate hard copy version of InTouch.

University of North Carolina at Wilmington Bans Art Exhibit Featuring Nude Females -- The president of the ACLU chapter at UNC-W contacted us on February 25, 2009 to report that UNC-W was planning to censor an upcoming art exhibit on UNC-W’s campus. The art exhibit, called the Century Project, seeks to show "realistic photographic representation of the contemporary American female." UNC-W administration decided to censor specific nude pictures of females under the age of 18. The exhibit is a chronological series of nude photographic portraits of more than one hundred females from the moment of birth to age 94. Most images are accompanied by statements written by the women themselves who exist in all shapes and sizes, and have been through many life experiences from sexual assault to body augmentation. The Century Project was developed in the 1980s and has toured annual since 1992. UNC-W is apparently the only institution to censor the Century Project in its 17 years of touring. We contacted the general counsel of the University to express our dismay at the University’s decision.

Asheville Flag Expression Case -- On Wednesday, July 25, 2007, Asheville residents Mark and Deborah Kuhn were arrested and charged with flag desecration, after flying their American flag upside-down with protest signs pinned to it. The Kuhns were also charged with resisting arrest and two counts of assault on a government employee stemming from the scuffle that ensued when Buncombe County Sheriff’s deputy Brian Scarborough broke into their home to place them under arrest. ACLU-NCLF cooperating attorney Bruce Elmore represented the Kuhns immediately after they were released from jail on a $1,500 bond. Bruce successfully persuaded Buncombe County District Attorney Ron Moore to drop all charges against the Kuhns, and Bruce also secured a public pronouncement from Sheriff Van Duncan that North Carolina’s flag desecration law is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and cannot be enforced. ACLU-NCLF cooperating attorney Frank Goldsmith also assisted on the case.

Burke County Public Schools – Controversy of Banning The Kite Runner from Curriculum -- The ACLU-NCLF received several calls and letters from Burke County residents regarding a controversy over whether to ban The Kite Runner, by Khaled Hosseini, from Burke County Public Schools. Concern were raised about reports that certain school board members wished to override Burke County Public Schools’ regular review process and summarily remove the book. Accordingly, the ACLU-NCLF sent a public records request to the school board on March 5, 2008, seeking additional information about this matter. On March 25, 2008, we learned from the Burke County school board attorney, Sam Aycock, that the book underwent the regular review process, and the Media/Technology Committee at the school voted unanimously to retain the book. In May, we learned that the System-Wide Media and Technology Committee upheld the decision of the local school committee. This decision was also affirmed by the Superintendent. The parents who had complained about the book have formally appealed the system-wide decision to the school board. In sum, it appears that the review procedure is being followed.

Lumbee Student’s Efforts to Wear Ceremonial Eagle Feather at High School Graduation -- The ACLU-NCLF and the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) were contacted in May by the parent of a student at Purnell Swett High School in Pembroke who wanted to wear eagle feathers on either his cap or gown during his graduation ceremony on Friday, June 13, 2008. Samuel Bird, father of Corey Bird, contacted the organizations, seeking assistance after Principal Wilkins informed Corey that he could not wear his eagle feathers in light of a mandatory graduation dress code policy that prohibited students from wearing “[m]essages, signs, markings, stringers, ribbons, etc.” on their “cap[s] or gown[s].” Corey indicated that he wanted to wear the feathers for religious and spiritual reasons in order to honor his late mother and grandfather. When it became apparent that school officials intended to stand by Principal Wilkins’s decision to prohibit Corey from wearing his feathers, ACLU-NCLF and NARF sent a letter to the school district on June 5, 2008, urging the district to reconsider its decision. Robeson County is approximately 40% Native American, principally Lumbee, according to the U.S. Census. Consequently, ACLU-NCLF and NARF argued that providing the Lumbee and other Native American students in Robeson County an opportunity to wear their eagle feathers would signify support for this significant portion of the population. The June 5th letter also explained that there is legal authority in this federal district for carving out an exception to the mandatory dress code only for those students (and their parents) who demonstrate a sincerely-held religious belief. In addition to sending the June 5th letter, Rebecca Headen, coordinator of ACLU-NCLF’s Racial Justice Project, and Katy Parker, Legal Director of ACLU-NCLF traveled to Lumberton for the Robeson County School Board meeting on June 10, 2008, and spoke on behalf of Corey and his father. Corey and his father also spoke at the school board meeting. In light of ACLU-NCLF and NARF intervention, the school board decided to resolve the matter informally and permitted Corey to wear his feathers at graduation.

Sampson County Schools Prohibit Student from Wearing American Flag T-shirt -- On September 12, 2007, the ACLU-NCLF received information that a student in Sampson County was banned from wearing an American flag t-shirt to school the previous day to commemorate 9/11/01. The ACLU-NCLF contacted the school board attorney and sent a letter to the principal and superintendent, advising the school officials that this ban violated the student’s First Amendment free speech rights. By the end of the day, the school district notified all parents in Sampson County that the policy would not be enforced. On September 13, 2007, the Sampson County superintendent sent us a letter confirming that the policy had been repealed.

Currituck County Judge Closing Criminal Trial of Blackwater Protesters -- On December 5, 2007, a Currituck County district judge decided to clear the courtroom during the criminal trespass trial of seven individuals arrested in October after protesting on Blackwater USA’s property in Moyock. Judge Edgar Barnes held a significant portion of the trial behind closed doors, ordering sheriff’s deputies to clear the courtroom. Everyone, except the defendants, prosecutors, sheriff’s witnesses and a Blackwater official, were immediately barred from the trial. Judge Barnes did not give a reason for clearing the courtroom. He then proceeded to try the cases, finding all seven defendants guilty of trespassing. On January 7, 2008, ACLU-NCLF filed a complaint against Judge Barnes with the North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission, arguing that Judge Barnes’s actions violated the right to a public trial under the First and Sixth Amendments. The ACLU-NCLF asked the Commission to investigate this matter and to take appropriate action against Judge Barnes.

DOC Banned Books Policy -- On May 7, 2007, ACLU-NCLF sent a public records request to the NC Department of Correction (DOC) regarding the DOC’s system-wide policy on banned books. Several book titles on the “Master List of Disapproved Publications” did not appear to violate DOC policy, and we sought information as to why these particular titles had been banned. DOC responded on June 1, 2007, to inform us that after receiving our request, officials decided to review the publications to determine whether they comply with the policy. We then learned that DOC decided to change the designation of most of the books that we questioned from “disapproved” to “approved.” Additionally, as a result of pressure from the ACLU-NCLF and the North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services (PLS), as well as a PLS lawsuit, the DOC is revising its policy regarding DOC review of prison officials’ decisions to ban certain publications. One new rule is that the state Publication Review Committee should complete its review within 7 days of receipt of a disputed publication.

Lobbying Reforms -- In 2006, the NC General Assembly passed “ethics reform” legislation that imposed a year-round zero-dollar total ban on lobbyists’ contributions. Despite objections voiced by the ACLU-NC and other organizations, both houses of the legislature agreed to this ban. On August 19, 2008, the ACLU-NCLF filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, challenging North Carolina’s Campaign Contribution Prohibition, (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-278.13C(a)), which imposes a year-round total prohibition on certain state campaign contributions by lobbyists. The plaintiff in the case is Sarah Preston, the ACLU-NC’s lobbyist, whose First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of association and free expression are being violated by the state law barring her from contributing even one dollar to the campaign of candidates for the state legislature and many other state offices at any time during the year, as long as she is registered as a lobbyist. This year-round, zero-dollar ban applies without regard to whether the would-be recipient of the contributions is, ever has been, or will be the object of Ms. Preston’s lobbying efforts.. Tom Segars of Ellis & Winters is serving as cooperating attorney on this case.

Marion Fortune-Telling Ordinance -- Last year, an individual named William Reese Smith applied for a fortune teller license in Marion, only to discover that the license fee for “fortune tellers, clairvoyants and gypsies” was 50 to 100 times greater than for almost any other business. On December 19, 2007, ACLU-NCLF sent a letter to the Marion City Attorney, arguing that the fee violated Mr. Smith’s rights under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The ACLU-NCLF asked the City to rescind the fortune teller license fee and award Mr. Smith an appropriate business privilege license to practice his art in the City of Marion. In response, the City Council significantly reduced the fee for fortune-telling.

NC Institute for Constitutional Law – Motion to Disqualify Attorney Based on Ethics Rule 3.6 -- In December 2007, the North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law (NCICL) sued Durham County for civil and injunctive relief to prohibit the County from providing unconstitutional economic incentives to Nitronex Corporation. Upon filing the complaint, NCICL senior staff attorney Jeannette Doran spoke with a reporter for the Durham Herald-Sun about the claims set forth in the lawsuit. Angered by Ms. Doran’s statement to the press, Durham County took the highly unusual step of filing a Motion to Disqualify counsel for Plaintiffs, arguing that Ms. Doran’s statement violated Rule 3.6 of the NC Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits an attorney from making an extrajudicial statement that “will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.” The ACLU-NCLF filed an amicus brief in support of NCICL on April 9, 2008, arguing that the County’s interpretation of Rule 3.6 would violate Ms. Doran’s and NCICL’s First Amendment rights. Hugh Stevens and Amanda Martin, of Everett Gaskins Hancock & Stevens in Raleigh, signed onto the brief as cooperating attorneys for the ACLU-NCLF. The motion to disqualify was heard by Judge Manning on April 14, 2008. During that hearing, Judge Manning granted ACLU-NCLF’s motion to appear as amicus and then summarily denied the County’s motion from the bench.

Oakboro Town Council – Suppression of Speech -- In July 2007, the ACLU-NCLF received a complaint from an individual named Brandon Smith, who signed up to speak during the Oakboro Town Council meeting’s “public comments” period. During his two-minute speech, one of the town council members yelled at Smith to “Sit down and shut up!” The councilmember continued berating Smith until Smith felt forced to leave the council chamber. Neither the mayor nor any of the other council members stopped the councilmember’s interruption. The next day, Smith was asked to come to a “private meeting” with the police chief, the mayor and the town attorney. During the meeting, the town attorney told Smith that it was inappropriate for Smith to say anything to the Town Council that might be “confrontational” or “offensive.” Also, the police chief suggested that Smith not participate in the town’s Fourth of July parade, in which Smith had planned to drive a car displaying his anti-drug message. The ACLU-NCLF sent a demand letter to Town Attorney Robert Odom on August 2, 2007, arguing that the Town officials’ actions violated Mr. Smith’s First Amendment rights. The Town responded on August 16, 2007, agreeing to all of the demands set forth in our letter. The town published an apology to Smith in the two local papers in October and reimbursed $150.00 that Smith spent to prepare his car for the Fourth of July parade. Smith was thrilled with the result!

Petitioning at North Carolina State Fair -- On October 15, 2007, the ACLU-NCLF was contacted by an individual named Andy Silver, who had been banned from the NC State Fair over the previous weekend for collecting signatures on a petition to impeach President Bush and for wearing a sign that said, “Impeach Bush.” The Agriculture Department police stopped Mr. Silver, read the sign, one of the officers said something that suggested that he did not like the message and then stated, “We don’t know if you can do that.” They also apparently told Silver that they “needed to expel him because his sign might anger people and that someone might attack him.” Mr. Silver was also circulating an impeachment petition. The officers took Mr. Silver’s picture and posted it on a board with others who have been permanently banned. The officers told Mr. Silver that he would be arrested if he returned. The ACLU-NCLF sent a letter to counsel for the Department of Agriculture, expressing our opinion that Mr. Silver’s First Amendment rights were violated when he was banned for wearing the sign. The Department of Agriculture offered to allow Mr. Silver back into the fair and also offered Mr. Silver a booth on the fairgrounds at a reduced price and waiver of the insurance requirement.

Winston-Salem Restrictive Sign Ordinance -- In October 2007, the ACLU-NCLF was contacted by Amy Shepard, a Winston-Salem resident who desired to place a sign in her yard advertising a church bazaar that had been scheduled at her church. Ms. Shepard was informed at a church circle meeting that it is considered “illegal” by the City to place such a sign on residential property. Ms. Shepard called the City Inspections Division to ask about the applicable city ordinances. An individual in the Inspections Division confirmed that displaying a sign for the church bazaar would be illegal and would result in a $50 fine per sign. In response to questions by Ms. Shepard, Mr. Holbrook also informed her that signs saying “Support Our Troops” or “Give Peace a Chance” would also be in violation of applicable municipal codes. Mr. Holbrook informed Ms. Shepard that these laws had been on the books for a long time but were not being enforced. Now, the City had decided to begin enforcing those laws. In November 2007, the ACLU-NCLF sent a letter to the Winston-Salem city attorney’s office to express concerns about various provisions of the sign ordinance. In response to our concerns, the City Council decided in February 2008, to revise its ordinances with regard to signs with a political message. The city also agreed to revise the ordinance with regard to the durational requirement on political campaign signs. However, the City would not revise the provision applying to Ms. Shepard’s request – i.e., a private advertisement for an off-property event. Ms. Shepard is moving out of the state and is not interested in pursuing this matter. We continue to seek potential plaintiffs to challenge the provisions of the sign ordinance that remain unconstitutional.

We Are One America Committee v. City of Asheville -- On August 22, 2007, the ACLU-NCLF announced a settlement with the City of Asheville on behalf of the "May 1st We Are One America Committee." The ACLU had filed suit against the city after organizers for the immigrants' rights march were charged the exorbitant amount of $1,500 to cover charges for police escorts that they had not requested, parking meters, and barricades. The city agreed to reimburse the organizers $1,300 and make substantial changes to their city ordinance governing parades and demonstrations.

State v. Ciocan -- On January 12, 2007, a Greensboro resident named Robert Ciocan was issued a citation for violating Greensboro’s noise ordinance, after he honked his car horn in support of an anti-war demonstration. ACLU-NCLF cooperating attorney Robert M. Elliot, of Elliot Pishko Morgan, P.A., in Winston-Salem, represented Mr. Ciocan at his hearing on the citation and was successful in getting the district attorney to agree to dismiss the case.

State v. Robinson -- The ACLU-NCLF recently assisted in a Mooresville, North Carolina criminal case in which the defendant was arrested for violation of the Mooresville panhandling ordinance. The ordinance prohibits soliciting money while standing on the shoulder or median of a highway. After hearing the legal arguments made by the criminal defense attorney based upon ACLU-NCLF research, the district attorney agreed to dismiss the case.

United States v. Flowers -- In November 2006, the ACLU-NCLF filed an amicus brief in the criminal appeal of Daniel Flowers, an individual convicted of violating, among other things, North Carolina’s profanity law, which provides that “[i]f any person shall, on any public road or highway and in the hearing of two or more persons, in a loud and boisterous manner, use indecent or profane language, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.” The ACLU-NCLF argued in the amicus brief that North Carolina’s profanity law is vague and overbroad and violates the First Amendment.

ACLU Files FOIA Requests -- The American Civil Liberties Union charged that the FBI and local police are engaging in intimidation based on political association and are improperly investigating law-abiding human rights and advocacy groups, according to documents obtained through a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Willis v. Town of Marshall (“dirty dancing” case) -- For many years, Ms. Willis had danced at a building leased by the Town of Marshall. In 2000, she was told by a member of the committee in charge of the building that she needed to “cool it” – a reference either to her style of dress or manner of dancing. Soon thereafter, she was banned indefinitely without a hearing from the building by the Marshall Depot Committee due to what was deemed by the committee to be inappropriate dancing. On behalf of Ms. Willis, the ACLU-NCLF filed suit in September 2002, alleging that banning Ms. Willis from the Depot was a violation of her rights under the First Amendment and her rights to due process of law and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. After almost four years of litigation, bouncing back and forth between the District Court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, this lawsuit was settled in November 2008 for $275,000. Cooperating attorneys on the case are Jon Sasser and Thomas Segars of Ellis & Winters in Cary and Marc Tucker of Smith Moore in Raleigh.

Gamwell v. Williamson -- The ACLU-NCLF came to the aid of a gay student at James Baxter Hunt, Jr., High School in Wilson, North Carolina, after school officials removed two posters promoting his campaign for Student Government Association President referencing the fact that he is gay.

Restrictions on the Display of Political Campaign Signs -- In early 2006, the ACLU-NCLF was notified of the existence of various town codes that place restrictions on political campaign signs. Specifically, a Southern Shores town code prohibited more than one sign per candidate per lot. Similarly, Kitty Hawk’s town code prohibited more than one sign per lot without a permit. Both codes also placed durational limits on display of the signs. The ACLU-NCLF wrote letters to Southern Shores and Kitty Hawk council members, expressing concern about restrictions on the number of signs and the duration for which they can be displayed. In response to the letters, the ACLU-NCLF was informed that the Southern Shores town council had directed the town manager to work with the town attorney to amend the current zoning ordinance. The Kitty Hawk planning board amended the section at issue, eliminating the numerical restrictions altogether. However, the Kitty Hawk town council voted to keep the durational restrictions. We are considering further legal action at this time.

Human Justice Coalition -- Members of the Human Justice Coalition, a local activist group in Wilson, NC, were passing out ACLU-NC “Know Your Rights” pamphlets to passersby in front of the Wilson County Courthouse and were informed by a police officer that they were not permitted to pass out literature at that location. After a phone call and an advisory letter from ACLU-NCLF regarding these individuals’ First Amendment rights, Human Justice Coalition members are now distributing information with no further harassment by the police.

Pledge of Allegiance Statute -- After the passage of Session Law 2006-137, which amends several North Carolina statutes pertaining to the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in state public schools, the ACLU-NCLF received several complaints from parents and teachers who contend that children in North Carolina public schools are being compelled to recite the Pledge and are not being informed that they have the right to refuse to stand, salute the flag, or recite the Pledge, even though North Carolina law clearly provides that a public school “shall not compel any person to stand, salute the flag, or recite the Pledge of Allegiance.” As a result, the ACLU-NCLF sent a letter to the State Superintendent, the Chairman of the North Carolina Board of Education and Lt. Governor Purdue, asking those state officials to immediately instruct all North Carolina Boards of Education to ensure that all public school principals and teachers are aware of this aspect of the law. The State Board Chairman responded, ensuring that all North Carolina superintendents and principals would again be notified that students and teachers may not be compelled to recite the Pledge.