"We are both saddened and outraged about the senseless and cowardly attack on Mr. Truong Van Tran. It is ironic that only a few hours after the judge vindicated the rule of law and allowed Mr. Tran to engage in peaceful political speech, he became the victim of mob violence. Mr. Tran displayed uncommon courage in pursuing his right to express his opinion through the legal system. Those who oppose him by breaking the law obviously do not understand their responsibilities as citizens of a free society and a constitutional democracy."

Today the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California joined the defense of Truong Van Tran, who leases a store in an Orange County shopping center, and was recently ordered by an Orange County Superior Court Judge to remove a picture of Ho Chi Minh and the current flag of the Republic of Vietnam from the walls of his store. The court issued the order on the grounds that the flag and picture, which caused protest in the strongly anti-Communist community in Westminster, is a public nuisance, which is barred by Mr. Tran's lease.

"We believe that the Court's order interprets the meaning of 'public nuisance' far too broadly, and in doing so, violates Mr. Tran's rights under the First Amendment and the 'Liberty of Speech Clause' of the California constitution," said ACLU attorney Peter Eliasberg. "The law is clear that controversial speech cannot be silenced on the ground that it is a public nusiance, even if the speech causes hostile reaction to that speech. Any other interpretation of the First Amendment would have a chilling effect on the rights of people to exercise free speech."

The ACLU, along with Mr. Tran's attorney Ronald Talmo, who has worked with the ACLU on numerous cases in the past, intend to file an opposition to the Shopping center's motion for a preliminary injunction this Friday, seeking to allow Mr. Tran to engage in protected speech once again, and requesting that the court deny any further injunctive order against Mr. Tran. A hearing on the preliminary injunction motion is scheduled for February 4, 1999 at the Orange County Superior Court in Santa Ana.

"Allowing a vague lease provision such as a 'public nuisance' to be considered a waiver of a fundamental constitutional right, sets a dangerous precedent," said Mr. Tran's attorney Ronald Talmo. It is sadly ironic that so many of Mr. Tran's critics left Vietnam in search of the very freedom of speech that they now seek to stifle.

Wednesday, January 13, 1999 the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in Anderson vs Roe, California's challenge to the Ninth Circuit decison blocking the state from limiting welfare payments to new state residents.

The ACLU of Southern California, the ACLU of Northern California and the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties represent defendants in this challenge along with the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Western Center on Law and Poverty. This is California's second attempt to reduce welfare benefits to women and children, many of whom are fleeing domestic violence in their states of origin.

Former Governor Wilson first tried to cut the benefits of new arrivals with a waiver from the Bush Administration in 1992, a scheme the ACLU of Southern California challenged in Green vs Anderson. The District Court declared that proposed policy unconstitutional in 1993 and the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision in 1994. The Supreme Court dismissed California's appeal in February 1997.

ACLU/SC legal director Mark Rosenbaum, who will deliver oral arguments before the Court said, "This case will decide whether our constitution treats newcomers as bonafide citizens. The Court's decision will affect women and children who come to California seeking to rebuild their lives, but who are faced with a two-tier system to penalize them for being victims of violence and abuse."

If California is allowed to reduce benefits to new residents for one year to the amount they would have received in their state of origin, a family of four from Mississippi, for example, would receive $144 a month rather than California. s allotment of $673.

Martha Davis, legal director of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund said, . This is a pivotal case for women fleeing domestic abuse who are forced to move across state lines in order to avoid stalking and violence. Our constitution guarantees that people will not be penalized for crossing a state border.