Gold9472
09-20-2005, 03:50 PM
FBI Can No Longer Silence Discussion of PATRIOT Act, Judge Says
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3093/1/390
9/19/2005
In a victory for First Amendment advocates, a federal judge lifted a gag order on a Connecticut library from whom the FBI demanded patrons' records, allowing them to discuss openly their experience and participate in the broader debate about the PATRIOT Act. The judge issued a preliminary injunction against the government, barring it from enforcing gag orders on recipients of certain orders called National Security Letters (NSL), created under the PATRIOT Act.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who is also a plaintiff in the case, represent "John Doe," an unidentified member of the American Library Association. The ACLU filed the lawsuit on August 9 against the U.S. Department of Justice, and the case was originally under seal in U.S. District Court in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
The lawsuit specifically challenges the NSL provision of the PATRIOT Act that allows the FBI to demand a range of records without any judicial oversight. The NSL gag order prevents the recipient from speaking out about personal experiences with the PATRIOT Act. The ACLU sought an emergency court order to lift the gag so the client could participate in meaningful discussions of the PATRIOT Act with Congress, the press, and the public. The government argued that the gag ordered blocked the release of the client's identity, not his ability to speak about the PATRIOT Act, and that revealing the client's identity could jeopardize a federal investigation into terrorism and spying.
In her September 9 ruling siding with the ACLU, U.S. District Court Judge Janet Hall ruled that the organization has a First Amendment right to fully participate in the discussion surrounding the PATRIOT Act. In order to do so, the recipient must be able to talk about the NSL. Hall wrote, "The [National Security Letter] statute has the practical effect of silencing those who have the most intimate knowledge of the statute's effect and a strong interest in advocating against the federal government's broad investigative powers." Ann Beeson, ACLU Associate Legal Director and the lead attorney in the case, said the ruling “makes clear that the government cannot silence innocent Americans simply by invoking national security." The decision has been stayed, and the gag order will remain, until September 20, to allow the government an opportunity to file an appeal.
The case is likely to be watched closely by critics and supporters of the PATRIOT Act alike. The preliminary injunction, which the government is likely to appeal, is a significant landmark, because it would, if upheld, allow the public for the first time to hear the experiences of someone who has received a National Security Letter. First Amendment and civil liberties activists argue that recipients of PATRIOT Act orders must be allowed to speak out and government should disclose the frequency and circumstances surrounding its use of PATRIOT Act powers, if the country is to have an informed discussion of the usefulness and constitutionality of the PATRIOT Act.
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3093/1/390
9/19/2005
In a victory for First Amendment advocates, a federal judge lifted a gag order on a Connecticut library from whom the FBI demanded patrons' records, allowing them to discuss openly their experience and participate in the broader debate about the PATRIOT Act. The judge issued a preliminary injunction against the government, barring it from enforcing gag orders on recipients of certain orders called National Security Letters (NSL), created under the PATRIOT Act.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who is also a plaintiff in the case, represent "John Doe," an unidentified member of the American Library Association. The ACLU filed the lawsuit on August 9 against the U.S. Department of Justice, and the case was originally under seal in U.S. District Court in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
The lawsuit specifically challenges the NSL provision of the PATRIOT Act that allows the FBI to demand a range of records without any judicial oversight. The NSL gag order prevents the recipient from speaking out about personal experiences with the PATRIOT Act. The ACLU sought an emergency court order to lift the gag so the client could participate in meaningful discussions of the PATRIOT Act with Congress, the press, and the public. The government argued that the gag ordered blocked the release of the client's identity, not his ability to speak about the PATRIOT Act, and that revealing the client's identity could jeopardize a federal investigation into terrorism and spying.
In her September 9 ruling siding with the ACLU, U.S. District Court Judge Janet Hall ruled that the organization has a First Amendment right to fully participate in the discussion surrounding the PATRIOT Act. In order to do so, the recipient must be able to talk about the NSL. Hall wrote, "The [National Security Letter] statute has the practical effect of silencing those who have the most intimate knowledge of the statute's effect and a strong interest in advocating against the federal government's broad investigative powers." Ann Beeson, ACLU Associate Legal Director and the lead attorney in the case, said the ruling “makes clear that the government cannot silence innocent Americans simply by invoking national security." The decision has been stayed, and the gag order will remain, until September 20, to allow the government an opportunity to file an appeal.
The case is likely to be watched closely by critics and supporters of the PATRIOT Act alike. The preliminary injunction, which the government is likely to appeal, is a significant landmark, because it would, if upheld, allow the public for the first time to hear the experiences of someone who has received a National Security Letter. First Amendment and civil liberties activists argue that recipients of PATRIOT Act orders must be allowed to speak out and government should disclose the frequency and circumstances surrounding its use of PATRIOT Act powers, if the country is to have an informed discussion of the usefulness and constitutionality of the PATRIOT Act.