The Rampart scandal hammered home the serious problem of police officers failing to come forward to report crimes committed by their fellow officers. Police officers seldom come forward because they fear retaliation from their co-workers; other officers fear retaliation from the top command. This makes the 'code of silence' possible.

It is therefore astonishing that, just days after the signing of the federal consent decree, members of the Police Commission would propose rules to limit the Inspector General's access to information and to make it more difficult for him to keep confidential the identity of people making complaints. Increasing - not decreasing - civilian oversight is the key to reforming the LAPD.

Through the years the ACLU has represented whistleblowers in police departments, most recently officers who came forward with information about misconduct and racist statements made by police in Riverside. We have seen firsthand that supposedly confidential reports to Internal Affairs are not, in fact confidential. The reporting officer soon finds himself an outcast, suffering reprisals from fellow officers and supervisors alike. Oftentimes, the reprisals are life-threatening; back-up mysteriously fails to arrive in dangerous situations.

This proposal would eviscerate the Inspector General's office. It is absolutely essential that the office be allowed to gather information about misconduct confidentially, and investigate wrongdoing. Of course, if after a thorough investigation disciplinary or criminal charges against an officer are brought, the identity of the witnesses must be made known to ensure the accused's rights of due process.

The ACLU strongly opposes the proposed rules, and urges the Police Commission to reject them.

We are disappointed. In its one sentence order denying the TRO, the Court has failed to grapple with the substantive free speech and free association issues involved in the closure of web sites devoted to matching like-minded voters with one another for the purpose of discussing politics and voting strategies. California's Secretary of State, Bill Jones, has taken action that could threaten our ability to exercise our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms on the Internet - action with potentially profound implications for the future of democratic discourse.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California is absolutely committed to preserving our freedom of speech and freedom of association in every forum, regardless of whether the content of that speech is printed on paper or streams through modems. We refuse to accept the principle that the immediacy and power of the Internet require us to treat it differently from other media and set aside the Constitution.

The issue is not yet settled. We will pursue this case.

LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California filed motions today in defense of tenant activists at Lincoln Place, a 795-unit affordable housing complex in Venice, who are being sued by the development companies that own their apartments. Tenants include seniors on fixed incomes, working families, and children. The tenants have been engaged since 1987 in a struggle to stop evictions and to preserve their homes from the owners' plans to demolish them and turn them into condominiums and townhouses. The owners claim that the tenants intentionally interfered with their economic advantage. The ACLU of Southern California maintains that tenants were engaged in Constitutionally protected activities, and that the landlords are seeking to chill their tenants' freedom of speech.

"Scrooge came early to Venice this year," said Dan Tokaji, ACLU staff attorney. "This lawsuit is a blatant attempt to intimidate tenants of limited means from exercising rights protected by the Constitution. We will not allow these tenants to be bullied or brow-beaten into silence through a frivolous, unfounded lawsuit."

"We have fought for more than a decade to keep our homes," said Sheila Bernard, president of the Lincoln Place Tenants' Association. "Our motto is 'Let's Own It,' because we feel that it's our responsibility not only to tell the owner what he can't do, but to do it ourselves. We want to own our future, our destiny, our neighborhood, our lives."

"We're organized and we're active," said Bernard, "and so far we've succeeded in insisting that our city value its irreplaceable, affordable housing. Our success using the tools of democracy is the very reason the developers now want to take those tools away from us."

Tokaji also announced that later this month the ACLU will file a special motion to strike the complaint under California's SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law.

"The Lincoln Place tenants gather signatures," said Tokaji. "They picket. They attend City Council meetings. They educate their neighbors. That's why they've been slapped with this lawsuit, and those activities are all protected by the Constitution."