From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 17:39:40 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Edited ACLU News
Message-ID: <01I5BZJM1TGG8Y52RR@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"rre@weber.ucsd.edu" 30-MAY-1996 01:11:39.86
From: Phil Agre <pagre@weber.ucsd.edu>

>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE).
>Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below.
>You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use
>the "redirect" command.  For information on RRE, including instructions
>for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to  rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

>Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 11:57:30 GMT
>From: ACLU Newsfeed Owner <owner-aclu-news@aclu.org>
>To: news@aclu.org

[...]

>                     *Ban on "Offensive" Comments Ruled Vague*

>SAN FRANCISCO -- A state law against "offensive" personal comments by lawyers
>was ruled unconstitutionally vague Friday for the second time, despite the
>State Bar's attempt to define it, the Associated Press reports.

>The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals first struck the law down in April
>1995, overturning a disciplinary order against a Los Angeles attorney who
>denounced women lawyers, the AP reported. In a 3-0 ruling, the court said the
>law was so broad and undefined that lawyers wouldn't know when they were
>violating it.

>The panel granted a rehearing last December to give the state and the State
>Bar, not previously parties, a chance to defend the law.

>The bar cited its new policy, adopted in October, that said the law would be
>enforced only against conduct in a courtroom or similar setting, such as a
>sworn deposition, that was so serious as to be "prejudicial to the
>administration of justice." They also said the law merely enforced an ethical
>code that lawyers were required to know as part of their profession.

>The court was unpersuaded, AP said, reaffirming its previous decision in a
>2-1 ruling.

>The case involved a disciplinary order against attorney Frank L. Swan, who
>wrote an angry note in May 1993 to a female prosecutor who had gotten him
>removed from a case. He attached the following statement to the note,
>photocopied from a magazine article:

>"Male lawyers play by the rules, discover truth and restore order. Female
>lawyers are outside the law, cloud truth and destroy order."

>In overturning the disciplinary order, the appeals court said the note showed
>a "patently sexist attitude'' but did not impugn the female prosecutor's
>integrity or interfere with the administration of justice.

>The American Civil Liberties Union defended Swan. The National Organization
>for Women was among those opposing him.

	One notices that the court did not strike this down on the obvious
grounds of free speech. I believe this may be an example of a law, not
struck down on such grounds, that fits TCMay's description that Rich
disputed.

>----------------------------------------------------------------
>                                 *Clinton Expands National ID*

>Seeking to further demonstrate its tough stance against illegal immigration,
>the Clinton Administration announced Thursday a national expansion of a pilot
>program in California that requires participating employers to verify the
>legal status of job seekers, according to a front page article in the New
>York Times.

>Specifically, the Immigration and Naturalization Service reached agreement
>with the nation's four largest meat-packing companies (representing 80
>percent of the industry's 70,000 employees) to use a computerized data system
>at 41 plants in 12 Western and Midwestern states to determine if job
>applicants are documented workers.

>The ACLU and other civil libertarians have long criticized the plan, saying
>it would lead to an costly, intrusive and error-prone national identification
>card.

>The effort announced today builds on the seven-month-old pilot program in two
>Southern California counties, Santa Ana and the City of Industry.  

>Meanwhile, immigration bills approved by the House and the Senate, and now
>awaiting resolution in a conference committee, include differing provisions
>that would expand pilot programs even further to allow the INS to more
>quickly evaluate among different systems.  

>"These pilot programs all lead down the same path," said Greg T. Nojeim, an
>ACLU Legislative Counsel.  "Unless the public steps up its pressure to stop
>them from proceeding, the government will build a giant computer registry
>that will require every single hiring decision in this country to be cleared
>through a centralized database."