The Chicago Tribune posted an article about Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel's efforts to change the rules for obtaining protest permits, the hours when demonstrations would be considered legal, and boosts in fines for a number of potential violations for demonstrations that are expected to occur to counter the G8 Summit taking place this spring. The ACLU of Illinois is keeping a close eye on discussions around the G8 Summit protests to ensure that First Amendment rights are not restricted, and that those who wish to peacefully assemble are able to do so without fear of arrest or fines.

Stiffening rules on typically fluid demonstrations will increase the likelihood of violations, giving police more opportunity to crack down and making it more costly for demonstrators, free speech advocates said.

"It's clear the more stringent the provisions, the more numerous, the greater the difficulty in complying with those provisions," said Harvey Grossman, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. "It's an unnecessary show of authority and something that will have very little meaning in terms of altering conduct."

Read the entire article.

The issue of recording police activity in public and the Illinois Eavesdropping Act made the front page of The Chicago Tribune on Monday. The article highlights several cases in which Illinois citizens are facing felony eavesdropping charges for recording interactions with police on their mobile devices and video cameras. The ACLU of Illinois sought to challenge the application of this law by filing a lawsuit in 2010 on behalf of the organization itself, as its staff members frequently monitor police activity and believe it is a First Amendment right to be able to document interactions with police as a means of gathering information.

Read the article.

Earlier today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled against our plaintiffs, including the late author Studs Terkel, in a series of cases against the telecommunications companies for warrantless monitoring of email and telephone conversations. In the Hepting v. AT&T case, the court rejected our "serious constitutional question" and agreed with the district court that our plaintiffs still had a forum for our constitutional claims because they could file a lawsuit against the government itself.