Wyoming Supreme Court rules last year’s ban on Jackson’s abortion protest unconstitutional


Wyoming Supreme Court rules last year’s ban on Jackson’s abortion protest unconstitutional | The Republic.

A state court order that barred abortion protesters from appearing at Jackson’s town square last year violated the protesters’ constitutional rights, the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

In a lengthy 3-2 decision, the state Supreme Court ruled the temporary restraining order issued by District Judge Timothy Day violated the First Amendment rights of protesters with the group Operation Save America.

Dozens of members of Operation Save America, based in Concord, N.C., descended on Jackson last May with graphic signs of aborted fetuses that they showed around town.

The group said it picked Jackson for its campaign in an effort to make Wyoming the first state in which no doctors would provide abortions. The group targeted a family practitioner whom it said was the only doctor in the state to offer abortions.

Wondering why they do not wish this honor bestowed upon their native state? 

The restraining order that Jackson secured from Day last year barred the protesters from appearing within two blocks of the town square. The town’s lawyer told Day that city police feared violence if the protesters came together with about 200 Boy Scouts and their families who were gathering for Elkfest, an annual auction of elk antlers.

The protesters weren’t alerted beforehand that the town was seeking the court order.

“Assuming the town had established a compelling interest in the protection of its youth and in maintaining the peace, we would nonetheless find the temporary restraining order unconstitutional,” Justice Michael Golden wrote for the court majority. “The town has not met its burden of establishing that the temporary restraining order ban was necessary to serve the town’s interest and that less restrictive measures would not have been adequate.”

Chief Justice Marilyn S. Kite and Justice William U. Hill wrote a dissent saying they believed the case was moot and that the constitutionality question shouldn’t have reached the court.

“No evidence was presented in this case that Operation Save America will return to Jackson and attempt to assemble or display posters during another scheduled event such as the Boy Scouts expo and auction or, in the event it does, that the town will again file for a temporary restraining order without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard,” Kite and Hill stated.

Rusty Thomas of Waco, Texas, is assistant director of operations for Operation Save America. He said Tuesday his group intends to return to Jackson next month. “I just got the news, and just tears of rejoicing,” he said of the court ruling. “The timing is incredible.”

Thomas said the group believes the ruling “strikes a blow for liberty and puts our government, both the federal and state authorities, on notice that the First Amendment is alive and well in the United States of America.”

Flip Benham, director of Operation Save America in Concord, said Tuesday the group has applied to the town of Jackson for permits to hand out materials next month but hasn’t received them yet.

“What they’ve done is put us off. They’ve said they’re going through new criteria for permits,” Benham said. He said the group’s experience in Jackson was the first time it has ever been restrained “from presenting the gospel.”

Attempts to reach town officials were not immediately successful Tuesday.

Audrey Cohen-Davis, lawyer for the town, argued before the Wyoming Supreme Court in November that it was proper for the town to secure the restraining order.

“Parents taking their Boy Scouts to the Elkfest event did not expect to have a group subjecting their children to such material,” Cohen-Davis said in November.

Jack Edwards, a lawyer in Etna, represented Operation Save America.

“I think it’s important to realize that the First Amendment, and the cases from the U.S. Supreme Court that have interpreted that amendment, were not to protect speech that people welcome and that people enjoy, but the basis for that amendment is to protect speech that causes arguments and dissent in the public square,” Edwards said Tuesday.

The state supreme court ruling comes just days after the state of Wyoming reached a settlement with another anti-abortion group, WyWatch Family Action.

In the agreement approved last week by U.S. District Judge Nancy Freudenthal of Cheyenne, Wyoming admitted it violated WyWatch’s constitutional rights by removing anti-abortion placards from a tunnel leading to the state Capitol during last year’s legislative session.

The state agreed to pay WyWatch $1 in nominal damages and $30,000 in attorney fees. WyWatch was represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, a national advocacy group for social conservatives.

Freudenthal allowed the American Civil Liberties Union to enter the WyWatch case to argue on the group’s behalf that the state had violated the group’s constitutional rights. Linda Burt, director of the Wyoming ACLU, said Tuesday that the courts decided both cases correctly by protecting public speech.

“While we disagree with both of the organizations involved in these cases, we firmly respect their right to discuss these issues in the public square,” Burt said. “The remedy for speech that you disagree with is more speech, and more debate and more information, and disallowing this kind of speech that you disagree with does not support that.”

About these ads

1940 census records include 21 million still alive


1940 census records include 21 million still alive.

When the 1940 census records are released Monday, Verla Morris can consider herself a part of living history.

Morris, who is in her 100th year, will get to experience the novelty of seeing her own name and details about her life in the records being released by the U.S. National Archives online after 72 years of confidentiality expires.

“I’d be happy to see it there,” she said. “I don’t think anything could surprise me, really.”

Morris is one of more than 21 million people alive in the U.S. and Puerto Rico who were counted in the 16th federal decennial census, which documents the tumultuous decade of the 1930s transformed by the Great Depression and black migration from the rural South. It’s a distinction she shares with such living celebrities as Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman.

Morris, who has been working on her family history since 1969 and has written six books on its branches, said census records were essential for her genealogical work because oftentimes people don’t want to give their personal information.

“Lots of times I just have to wait until maybe they die,” she said. “Then I’ll have all their information.”

But census records, which include names, addresses and _ in the case of the 1940 census, income and employment information _ are rich with long-veiled personal details.

Morris, who turns 100 in August and was contacted through the National Centenarian Awareness Project, said she was working as a keypunch operator in Fairfield, Ill., when the 1940 census was taken. “I don’t remember them taking my census,” said Morris, who lives in Chandler, Ariz.

While a name index will not be immediately available to search, tens of thousands of researchers across the country are expected to go on a monumental genealogical hunt this week through the digitized records for details on 132 million people. Access to the records will be free and open to anyone on the Internet.

Every decade since 1942, the National Archives has made available records from past censuses. Some privacy advocates have opposed releasing such large amounts of personal information about living people.

The American Civil Liberties Union, for instance, has for over 30 years opposed any unrestricted release of census records.

Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the ACLU, said harm could come from combining the rich 1940 census data with other information.

“Computer technology today allows you to take information from different sources and combine it into a very high resolution image of somebody’s life,” he said. “Each particular piece of information might just be one pixel. But when brought together, they become very intrusive.”

A document obtained from the National Archives by The Associated Press through a Freedom of Information Act request shows that, in 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau raised privacy concerns about the disclosure of the 1940 census by the nation’s record-keeper.

Census Bureau spokesman Robert Bernstein said in an email that any fears the data could be used to harm anyone living today “such as through identity theft” were alleviated when the archives said no birthdates or Social Security numbers would be in the records. One 1940 census question asked a sample group of over 6 million people whether they had a Social Security number, but did not explicitly ask for the number itself.

Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for the National Archives, said the agency did not do a privacy impact assessment of the records. She said archives officials did not know of any complaints from the public about the impending release.

Robert Gellman, a privacy and information consultant, said he doubted the records would be of much value to crooks, given how easy it is to obtain personal information on the Internet.

“There’s nobody out there complaining about 70-year-old records being used against them,” he said.

Morris is also unconcerned about personal information from 1940 being made public.

A self-confessed genealogy addict, she said it was important for people to be able to learn about their ancestors through genealogical research and relies on census records constantly.

“Every family should be interested enough to have a family history,” she said.

___

Online:

http://1940census.archives.gov

http://www.census.gov/1940census/

http://www.ancestry.com/1940

http://www.the1940census.com

Twitter hands over user info for criminal investigation | Webware – CNET


Twitter hands over user info for criminal investigation | Webware – CNET.

The social network says it turned over information for a single user involved in a case indirectly related to Occupy Boston, though the details of the inquiry have not been disclosed.

Twitter has finally handed over user information for an ongoing criminal investigation indirectly related to an Occupy Boston protest.

Speaking to the Boston Globe in a statement published yesterday, Twitter spokesman Matt Graves said that the company has “provided information on a single user.” That user is @pOisAnON, who the police say, is associated with the name “Guido Fawkes,” Graves told the Globe.

The handover ends a bitter battle between Boston law enforcement and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) over whether the information should have been shared for the investigation. Law enforcement officials have argued that the data Twitter could provide–namely, IP address information associated with the account–is an integral component in their ongoing investigation. The ACLU, however, told the Globe that sharing the information is a violation of the user’s First Amendment rights.

Back in December, the Suffolk County District Attorney’s office requested IP address information from Twitter. The office wanted information about the aforementioned user, as well as @OccupyBoston. The district attorney’s office also requested information on “Guido Fawkes” and Twitter hashtags, #BostonPD and #d0xcak3.

Although the district attorney asked Twitter to not share the request, it did so with @pOisAnON. The move, Graves said at the time, was in accordance with its privacy policy, which forces Twitter to inform users whenever requests are made for their information. Soon after, @pOisAnON posted the document on Scribd and made it clear he or she was ready for a fight.

“Subpoenas will not shake me,” @pOisAnON said at the time. “So do whatever you think you can to try and stop Anonymous, but you will learn fast. One of us is not nearly as harsh as all of us. You cannot arrest an idea. You cannot subpoena a hashtag.”

Despite the request coming down in December, Twitter did not hand over @pOisAnON’s information, and a court battle between the ACLU and the Suffolk County district attorney erupted. Last week, Superior Court Judge Frances McIntyre ruled in favor of the attorney’s office and required Twitter to hand over the information this week, according to the Globe.

Neither Twitter nor the attorney’s office have disclosed exactly what the social network turned over. As of this writing, however, @pOisAnON’s account is suspended. It should also be noted that representative for the district attorney told the Globe that “the relationship between this investigation and Occupy Boston is tangential at best.”

Twitter did not immediately respond to CNET’s request for comment on the Globe’s story.