LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union and the City of Los Angeles signed an agreement today that will allow protesters to engage in free speech at the Democratic National Convention. The plan wasdrawn up as a result of a preliminary injunction issued by Judge Gary Feess of the U.S. Central District Court in a suit brought by the ACLU of Southern California.

The agreed upon plan shifts the security perimeter, allowing protesters to demonstrate across the street from the northeast corner of the Staples Center and along Figueroa St. N of 11th and lays out a provisional system of permitting in lieu of the city's unconstitutional schemes. The agreement was submitted today to Judge Feess.

"This plan works for free speech and works for security; it's something we've said all along was possible," said Dan Tokaji, staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California. "After nearly a week of intensive negotiation, protesters will be within sight and earshot of their intended audience. Moreover, the city's unconstitutional method of dealing with parade and park use permits is history. The agreement means that the voices of the people will not be silenced."

"This is welcome news," said Ramona Ripston, Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California, "especially in the context of the fear-mongering that has occurred of late. Free speech is not incompatible with planning for a secure and peaceful convention."

LOS ANGELES - Judge Gary Feess issued a written order today requiring the City of Los Angeles and its police department to accommodate free speech during the Democratic National Convention and prohibiting them enforcing their current park use and parade permit granting schemes. The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California sought the preliminary injunction on behalf of Service Employees International Union, Local 660; the Los Angeles Coalition to Stop the Execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal, and the D2K Convention Planning Coalition, all of whom plan peaceful protests near the convention site.

"The court's order is a ringing defense of our Constitutional rights to speak freely and to gather peacefully," said Dan Tokaji, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California. "It identifies political conventions as crucial to our democracy, and it decisively rejects the LAPD's attempt to cut off speakers from their audience. This is a real victory for free speech, for our democracy, and for the people of Los Angeles."

The ACLU brought its case to challenge three limits the City has placed or plans to place on free speech: the City's proposed "security zone," which would have sealed off a 186-acre area around the convention site from any free speech activity; the City's parade permit granting scheme, which requires a 40-day advance application and has a waiver process without any limit on the City's discretion, and the City's requirement of a permit for any free speech activity in a park which might draw a crowd. Judge Feess's order prevents the City from limiting First Amendment rights in any of these ways. The City and the Los Angeles Police Department must create constitutional alternatives to their unconstitutional plans.

"The LAPD's job is to ensure that officers create an atmosphere of respect, calm, and order within the bounds of our Constitution," said Ramona Ripston, Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California, "The LAPD until now has insisted on presenting us with a false choice: security or freedom of speech. Judge Feess very properly rejected that formulation."

"It's absolutely critical at this juncture," said Ripston, "to defuse the fearful, overwrought atmosphere that has been created by LAPD leaders about civilians exercising their free speech rights. If officers are fearful and feel besieged before the Convention even starts, then they're much less likely to use their best judgment and reason when responding to the challenges an event of this magnitude presents."

The ACLU is joined in this lawsuit by attorney Carol Sobel, Robert Myers, of Newman. Aronson. Vanaman., and law professor Karl Manheim of Loyola Law School.

When we filed our lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and its police department for their plans to corral peaceful demonstrators in a fenced parking lot out of sight and earshot of their intended audience, we knew we would receive plenty of criticism. We knew that the Los Angeles Police Department would attempt to portray the demonstrators as a threat to the security of our city. And we knew that our defense of free speech would be misrepresented by LAPD apologists both within the Department and elsewhere. There have been no surprises on any of these counts.

But whenever the ACLU of Southern California and its work are grossly misrepresented in the media, we feel it's necessary to take the extra step of responding directly.

On more than one occasion since we filed our lawsuit on June 30, the ACLU of Southern California has been portrayed as reluctant to participate in the problem-solving process but eager to sue when problems result. Commander David Kalish, a spokesperson for the LAPD, first floated a test balloon of this mischaracterization in the Los Angeles Times; critics of long standing were only too eager to pick it up, without bothering to check their facts. Not one of these critics called the ACLU to make a simple inquiry.

Had they done so, they would have discovered that the ACLU of Southern California in fact tried to participate in the security planning process for the Democratic National Convention. In response to a letter requesting help from the LAPD, the ACLU made a written offer last August to look at any plans that the LAPD developed in order to help the Department implement a plan that would not violate the First Amendment. We followed up with a verbal offer to Commander Thomas Lorenzen, requesting that the LAPD maintain open communication with us in order to preserve civilians' free speech rights at the Convention. Despite many written attempts to learn of the LAPD's proposals, it was not until June 13 that the Department confirmed its plans to shut down free speech in a 186-acre area around the Staples Center.

Preserving our First Amendment rights is a sacred trust for the ACLU; we will do that through every means at our disposal - offering our Constitutional expertise during the planning process for events such as the Democratic National Convention - and, if necessary, suing the City and the LAPD when their plans fail to allow for the full exercise of our Constitutional rights.

The Police Department's spokespeople and apologists are inventing complaints about process and etiquette rather than addressing the real issue: the LAPD's unconstitutional plan to divorce protesters from their intended audience and to suppress the dissent a healthy democracy requires.