The Wily Python Show

Letter to the Editor of the SF ChronicleEditor:

We write to express our concern over recent reports in the San Francisco Chronicle dealing with the Academy of Art’s expulsion of a student who wrote a controversial short story, its firing of the student’s writing instructor, and its response to attempts by other faculty members and students to discuss the important questions raised by the school’s actions. (“A Work of Art or a Harbinger of Violence?,” March 25, 2004; “Class Takes to Street to Protest Censorship,” April 8, 4004). It now appears that at least one other student may also have been expelled when she refused to self-censor her short stories.

Academic freedom is as important an issue at private educational institutions as it is at public universities; it is a matter of particular concern at an institution like the Academy of Art, whose most basic mission is to nurture creative thought and expression. Concerns about student welfare are, of course, legitimate. However, those concerns must be addressed in a manner that neither punishes creative expression nor orders that it cease. Moreover, discussion and debate over the issues must be encouraged, not suppressed. We are disappointed that the Academy seems unwilling to allow critical discussion of the difficult issues presented here, including criticism of the Academy’s decision not to rehire one of the student’s writing instructors. The traditions that underlie artistic expression seem to have been abandoned and the Academy seems to have lost sight of its mission. It needs to rethink its approach to controversial writing and it needs to allow its faculty and students to engage in meaningful discussion of these issues, even when that discussion takes the form of dissent.

Dorothy M. Ehrlich
Executive Director
ACLU of Northern California
San Francisco

Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’AntisemitismeIn November 2000 a French court issued an order requiring Yahoo Inc. to implement procedures to prevent Yahoo! users in France from accessing any material on Yahoo.com that violates French law concerning Nazi-related materials. The court also ruled that Yahoo! must pay a penalty amounting to approximately $13,000 per day for each day of noncompliance with the order. Yahoo! then filed an action for declaratory relief in federal court in San Jose, contending that the French order is unenforceable in the United States. (Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme) The district court held first that it had personal jurisdiction over the two French organizations; and second, that enforcement of the French order by an American court would violate the First Amendment. The two French organizations appealed only the ruling on personal jurisdiction.

As we did in the district court, the ACLU-NC and the national ACLU, together with an impressive consortium of other free speech advocates, filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit on the First Amendment issue. In September, 2004, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over the French organizations. The ACLU, along with many of the same organizations that joined in the original amicus brief, filed a short amicus brief in support of Yahoo!’s petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. We argued that if a foreign person or entity takes affirmative steps both in a foreign court and in the United States to force a U.S.-based speaker to censor lawful, constitutionally protected speech aimed at U.S. listeners, U.S. courts should and do have jurisdiction to protect that speech. The inability to obtain a timely declaratory judgment in circumstances like this would have a broad chilling effect on free expression over the Internet. The Ninth Circuit has now agreed to rehear the case en banc. Oral argument is scheduled for March 24, 2005.
» Click here for the brief.

Patriotism vs. the USA Patriot Act

By Dorothy M. Ehrlich

Published in The San Francisco Chronicle on July 4, 2005

-------full story click here

"The outcry is all the more remarkable when you consider that three years ago, a bipartisan movement for Patriot Act reform was virtually unthinkable. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the Bush administration, with former Attorney General John Ashcroft leading the charge, chose to demand unilateral power to limit civil liberties and diminish our privacy in a variety of ways. Indeed, Ashcroft lashed out at those who questioned the administration's policies with such McCarthyist comebacks as, "Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve." His tough talk was backed by action: The administration issued an executive order lifting a ban against spying on and infiltrating domestic political and religious groups."