From ACLU's Blog of Rights:

In March 2006, the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Federal Protective Service (FPS) issued a “Protective Intelligence Bulletin” from the “Intelligence Branch” of its “Threat Management Division.” The bulletin contained a “Civil Activists and Extremists Action Calendar” that identified dozens of peaceful advocacy groups and provided the details for over 70 demonstrations, almost entirely peace, environmental and social justice rallies and marches. With the exception of a single entry referring to a radio host’s call for “militant, pro-White rallies,” there was not a single item suggesting that criminal activity or violence was expected at any of these events.

This type of government monitoring and tracking of lawful demonstrations and political speech can have a chilling effect on Americans’ exercise of their rights to free speech and assembly. This is especially true when those demonstrations advocate positions that are in opposition to government policy. Moreover, and perhaps not surprisingly, many of the groups listed in this “action calendar” have been subjected to unwarranted surveillance by the FBI or other law enforcement agencies. Protection from this type of government monitoring is exactly the reason why the First and Fourth Amendments were adopted.

When we learned of the bulletin, we filed a complaint with DHS’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (OCRCL), so that they would investigate whether DHS officials abused their authority by improperly collecting and disseminating information regarding political demonstrations.

In November 2009, the OCRCL informed us that they had concluded their investigation, and that they had found no wrongdoing or abuse of authority, but that the memorandum detailing the findings of the investigation was a privileged communication that was protected from disclosure. Last week we received another letter with further details, but this letter, too, refused to disclose the memorandum detailing the investigative findings. The letter reaffirmed that FPS had acted within its authority when monitoring and collecting data on the non-violent political activities of advocacy groups. We strongly disagree with the OCRCL’s finding that FPS acted within its authority to compile and disseminate a list tracking the political activities of advocacy groups. No agency or department in government has the right to monitor the peaceful and lawful political activities and speech of Americans.

Read full blog post.

Today is the 100th anniversary of International Women's Day. IWD is a day of celebrating the historical achievements of women in all fields as well as a day to look to the future of women's rights. While IWD has its roots in the Suffrage movement in the US, it is now celebrated in dozens of countries and has grown to encompass the issues that women face all over the world.

Take some time throughout the day to acknowledge the women in your life, to celebrate their accomplishments, and to consider the issues that they still face 100 years after the institution of International Women's Day.

Learn more about IWD events happening around the world.
What is next for International Women's Day?

The Chicago SunTimes had a great editorial last week about the Nequa Valley t-shirt case:

“Debate on public issues should be robust, uninhibited and wide-open,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote.

This is even true in schools, where free speech must be balanced against the goal of creating a safe environment for all kids. Officials at Neuqua Valley High School in Naperville chose between those two goals, a choice we believe is a false one.

Maintaining free speech is, in the end, a key ingredient in creating a nurturing environment for all students.

The courts have long agreed, saying students do not give up their free speech rights at the schoolhouse door.

Read the whole thing. Learn more about the ACLU's 2008 amicus brief in this case, which asked the court to balance both freedom of speech and freedom from discrimination, and concluded that the court should protect the right of students to wear their "be happy not gay" t-shirts in the manner that they sought.