Over the past year, we’ve seen students and faculty at numerous college campuses in California and across the country show what it means to exercise their First Amendment rights. When UCLA failed to protect non-violent protesters who were subjected to hours of unrelenting mob violence, and then decided to shut down a pro-Palestinian encampment, in effect picking up where the mob left off and targeting speech the mob had been unable to silence, the ACLU SoCal acted quickly and advocated for student protesters by sending public commentary to then-chancellor Gene Block, defending their right to speak out. The right to protest and speak out is a cornerstone of democracy, and integral to our work.
Our stance on the matter of speaking out is rooted in a long history defending First Amendment rights. On June 23, 1967, 10,000 students took to the streets of Century City to protest the Vietnam War. Their collective shouts were met by 1,500 police officers who responded violently; arresting over 50 protesters and injuring hundreds of them. The ACLU SoCal defended the marchers in August of 1967. Eventually, all charges were dropped to misdemeanors, 14 cases were overturned, and four cases ended in hung juries.
The right to speak out even played a role in the founding of our affiliate. When Upton Sinclair and his colleagues marched up Liberty Hill to read the Bill of Rights to striking dock workers, upon their arrival, the police chief at the time warned Sinclair that reading the Bill of Rights would land him in jail. He responded, “Well, we’ve decided we want to be arrested.” Following the police chief’s violation, Sinclar pulled his resources together and founded the ACLU SoCal on May 12, 1923.
Public figures, and their voices, are reflected in the history of this affiliate. Following her anti-war campaign, actress Jane Fonda found herself pitted against the Nixon Administration. She turned to the ACLU SoCal for help. In 1973’s Fonda v. FBI, we defended Fonda in enduring targeted attacks from the Nixon administration, including the decision to name her a public enemy. The lawsuit settled on three goals: to compel various agencies to admit that they spied on her; to make them admit that it was wrong; and to force the government to cease and desist.
Decades later, the single Cop Killer, released by rapper Ice-T in 1992, challenged the status quo of a country rampant with police violence and racism. It faced powerful opposition.
Time Warner Inc., actor Charlton Heston, California Attorney General Dan Lungren, and the L.A. Police Commission insisted that Ice-T’s rap song, Cop Killer, be removed not only from his Body Count album but everywhere. The ACLU SoCal intervened on his behalf, testifying before the Police Commission:
“Cop Killer is a message that demands attention, not suppression. [It is] a furious repudiation of what many elements of our urban communities regard as a tradition of police violence."
Our work centers the right to speak out even when it causes discomfort or disruption. In May 2020, hundreds of thousands of Angelinos demonstrated against the police murder of George Floyd. Asserting that protesters had gone too far in causing disruption, former L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti imposed draconian curfews. The ACLU SoCal filed an emergency lawsuit on behalf of Black Lives Matter Los Angeles and individual journalists, protesters, and other individuals. Less than 24 hours later, the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, and the City of San Bernardino, which were all defendants in our lawsuit, ended their curfews.
After the curfew was lifted, Melina Abdullah, co-founder of Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, concluded in a statement to the press:
“There was no curfew on the murder of George Floyd, no arrests until we decried his merciless death, no statements of support until people flooded the streets around the world demanding justice. We have the right to march, we have the right to speak out, and not just on the government’s timetable.”
Each of these historic cases represents long hours of work and challenging circumstances for all those involved. We revisit them because they highlight the diverse elements of free speech and government transparency that we aim to protect. Our mission mandates systems of open government, fair policy, and freedom of expression. Though the nature and key players involved in these systems are constantly changing, our work upholds that no voice — whether student, collective, or public facing — should be silenced.
