LOS ANGELES - In a decisive victory for the free speech rights of artists, a federal court today dismissed Mattel's lawsuit which sought to stop artist Tom Forsythe from using the Barbie doll in an award-winning series of photographs that comments on the doll and the values it embodies. The victory, led by pro bono lead counsel Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin, was complete. The judge granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Tom Forsythe and denied Mattel's motion for partial summary judgment. Unless Mattel decides to appeal, today's judgment will mark the end of the case.

The case, Mattel v. Walking Mountain Productions, centered on the corporate control of public symbols and the issue of whether artists have the right to transform the intellectual property of others in order to criticize such symbols and comment on society.

"The intellectual property laws do not grant corporations the right to control all artistic speech concerning the role of products and corporations in our society," said Annette L. Hurst, lead counsel from Howard, Rice. "We are gratified that Judge Lew's decisive ruling recognized this important limitation on the copyright and trademark laws."

Artist Tom Forsythe, of Kanab, Utah, has used Barbie dolls to parody Barbie's embodiment of America's culture of consumption and conformism. His "Food Chain Barbie" series of photos appeared in galleries and won critical acclaim in juried competitions. In August of 1999, Mattel sued the artist for copyright and trademark infringement. The firm Howard, Rice and the ACLU of Southern California stepped in to stop Mattel's use of litigation as a method of bullying artists into abandoning their First Amendment rights.

"This ruling shows that might is not always right," said artist Tom Forsythe. "The judge's decision is a powerful victory for all feminists who criticize Barbie's stereotype of women and the unquestioning acceptance that allows Mattel to sell these hyper-sexualized hunks of plastic into millions of American homes."

"Both copyright and trademark law allow artists like Mr. Forsythe to use well-recognized cultural symbols such as the Barbie doll to comment on and critique those symbols," said Simon J. Frankel of Howard, Rice. "Our culture would be greatly impoverished if the law were otherwise."

"This is a ringing victory for artists' rights and the First Amendment," said Peter Eliasberg, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California. "The court has made clear that Mattel cannot use the legal system to silence artists who want to comment on and parody Mattel's products." Artist Tom Forsythe is now working with the Creative Freedom Defense Fund to help other artists fight corporate censorship of their work.

LOS ANGELES - Four Los Angeles area activist groups sued Los Angeles and its police department in federal court today to stop the LAPD's policies and customs that violate protesters' Constitutional rights. The four groups �_ National Lawyers Guild, Los Angeles Chapter; Los Angeles Coalition to Stop the Execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal; Los Angeles Chapter of the October 22nd Coalition to Stop Police Brutality, Repression and the Criminalization of a Generation; and D2K Convention Planning Coalition �_ brought the suit as a result of free speech violations that took place at two major protest events in Los Angeles in the last year, the protests at the Democratic National Convention between August 14 and August 17, 2000, and the October 22, 2000, protest against police brutality at the Parker Center.

"Battles that the LAPD lost in court, it took to the street and fought with batons and missiles," said Dan Tokaji, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California. "Last year the courts ordered the LAPD to allow protesters to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed free speech rights. Officials and officers of the LAPD decided they knew better than the courts and shut down free speech anyway. It's time to reckon with that gross abuse of power and to change the policies and customs that the LAPD regularly employs to squelch our Constitutional rights."

The lawsuit, National Lawyers Guild v. City of Los Angeles, details an array of activities that the LAPD uses to suppress free speech and to intimidate those who attempt to exercise it in public venues in Los Angeles. These activities include surveillance, infiltration of protest groups, the imposition of no-speech zones, the use of excessive force, the use of inappropriate, pretextual administrative searches, the illegal dispersal of public free speech events, and the illegal blocking of pre-authorized, fully permitted marches.

"The LAPD is at war with the First Amendment," said Carol Sobel, ACLU/SC co-operating attorney. "Right now, people who decide to exercise their Constitutional rights have to fear for their lives."

The lawsuit also describes the LAPD's use of batons, concussion grenades, rubber bullets, and other projectiles to disperse and intimidate crowds. The suit describes multiple instances of deliberate misuse of these weapons, including the use of batons to hit people in the head and the firing of supposedly "nonlethal" projectiles such as "Stingers," "Multiple Batons," and "eXact iMpacts" directly at people, rather than shooting them to ricochet off the ground, a misuse which manufacturers warn could result in serious injury or death.

"LAPD's unconstitutional use of force targets everyone and anyone who dares to speak out about the injustices in our society," said James Lafferty, Executive Director of the Los Angeles Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild. "Its target is the right to dissent. Its target is constitutional government as we know it."

The plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU of Southern California and Carol Sobel, an ACLU/SC cooperating attorney and National Lawyers Guild volunteer counsel; Robert Myers, of the firm Newman. Aaronson. Vanaman. and volunteer counsel for the National Lawyers Guild; Prof. Karl Manheim (Loyola Law School), and Paul L. Hoffman, of Schonbrun, Desimone, Seplow, Harris & Hoffman.

LOS ANGELES - People for Community Empowerment, a coalition organizing around energy and other community issues, will be able to go ahead with a rally and parade starting at El Dorado Park in Long Beach on July 4, after winning a temporary restraining order yesterday against the City of Long Beach. People for Community Empowerment is represented by ACLU/SC co-operating attorney Carol Sobel.

"This Independence Day, we have one more thing to celebrate," said Sobel. "The federal court here in Los Angeles allowed our plaintiffs' constitutionally-protected free speech activities to go ahead as planned. Their activities represent the heart of our freedom as a nation, and their perseverance in the face of city bureaucratic obstacles will secure their own rights �_ and the rights of others in the future."

The city began to create obstacles for People for Community Empowerment when it learned that anarchists might distribute literature at a table at the event. The city cited several provisions of its permitting scheme, the substance of which had already been successfully challenged by the ACLU in court nearly ten years ago, when Long Beach Gay and Lesbian Pride event organizers encountered city resistance to their event.

"The City of Long Beach tinkered with its unconstitutional law, but did not fundamentally change its unconstitutionality," said Sobel. " The City of Long Beach still has a permitting scheme which gives the city and its agents the power, in effect, to stop speech it doesn't happen to like. That's what we hope to change."

The temporary restraining order, granted yesterday by U.S. District Judge Robert Takasugi, orders the City of Long Beach not to enforce its parade permitting ordinance and to issue forthwith any and all necessary permits for the event. The order also exempts the group from posting a bond in order to hold their event.