From: IN%"rre@weber.ucsd.edu" 30-MAY-1996 01:11:39.86 From: Phil Agre <pagre@weber.ucsd.edu>
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 11:57:30 GMT From: ACLU Newsfeed Owner <owner-aclu-news@aclu.org> To: news@aclu.org
[...]
*Ban on "Offensive" Comments Ruled Vague*
SAN FRANCISCO -- A state law against "offensive" personal comments by lawyers was ruled unconstitutionally vague Friday for the second time, despite the State Bar's attempt to define it, the Associated Press reports.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals first struck the law down in April 1995, overturning a disciplinary order against a Los Angeles attorney who denounced women lawyers, the AP reported. In a 3-0 ruling, the court said the law was so broad and undefined that lawyers wouldn't know when they were violating it.
The panel granted a rehearing last December to give the state and the State Bar, not previously parties, a chance to defend the law.
The bar cited its new policy, adopted in October, that said the law would be enforced only against conduct in a courtroom or similar setting, such as a sworn deposition, that was so serious as to be "prejudicial to the administration of justice." They also said the law merely enforced an ethical code that lawyers were required to know as part of their profession.
The court was unpersuaded, AP said, reaffirming its previous decision in a 2-1 ruling.
The case involved a disciplinary order against attorney Frank L. Swan, who wrote an angry note in May 1993 to a female prosecutor who had gotten him removed from a case. He attached the following statement to the note, photocopied from a magazine article:
"Male lawyers play by the rules, discover truth and restore order. Female lawyers are outside the law, cloud truth and destroy order."
In overturning the disciplinary order, the appeals court said the note showed a "patently sexist attitude'' but did not impugn the female prosecutor's integrity or interfere with the administration of justice.
The American Civil Liberties Union defended Swan. The National Organization for Women was among those opposing him.
One notices that the court did not strike this down on the obvious grounds of free speech. I believe this may be an example of a law, not struck down on such grounds, that fits TCMay's description that Rich disputed.
---------------------------------------------------------------- *Clinton Expands National ID*
Seeking to further demonstrate its tough stance against illegal immigration, the Clinton Administration announced Thursday a national expansion of a pilot program in California that requires participating employers to verify the legal status of job seekers, according to a front page article in the New York Times.
Specifically, the Immigration and Naturalization Service reached agreement with the nation's four largest meat-packing companies (representing 80 percent of the industry's 70,000 employees) to use a computerized data system at 41 plants in 12 Western and Midwestern states to determine if job applicants are documented workers.
The ACLU and other civil libertarians have long criticized the plan, saying it would lead to an costly, intrusive and error-prone national identification card.
The effort announced today builds on the seven-month-old pilot program in two Southern California counties, Santa Ana and the City of Industry.
Meanwhile, immigration bills approved by the House and the Senate, and now awaiting resolution in a conference committee, include differing provisions that would expand pilot programs even further to allow the INS to more quickly evaluate among different systems.
"These pilot programs all lead down the same path," said Greg T. Nojeim, an ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Unless the public steps up its pressure to stop them from proceeding, the government will build a giant computer registry that will require every single hiring decision in this country to be cleared through a centralized database."