reaching tentacles we'll have protesters in the nation's biggest cities in just a moment and as the first amendment been trampled on during this month of protests in america i'll speak with someone about the legality of the occupy wall street movement and the illegality of the police response to it. you need to know this happy anniversary occupy wall street today marks one month since people began camping out your manhattan to protest wall street's high crimes and disastrous influence our economy and that month this movement has transformed into an unstoppable force occupying not just new york city but the entire planet over the weekend hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in europe south america and asia in solidarity with the occupy wall street movement in iran demonstrations turned violent as police cars the government building were torched causing over a million dollars damage here in the united states where protests of remain peaceful despite ongoing brutal police crackdowns tens of thousands of people filled times square this weekend in new york city and tens of thousands more

rights if our founding fathers saw that it would be horrified our first amendment was created on wall street when that was our nation's political capital now our nation's capital was moved here to washington d.c. and wall street is just a play place where banking and financial business is done and it would be a horrible irony if on that same block on wall street where the first amendment was first ratified two hundred twenty two years ago this week democracy was to begin to die don't let it happen occupy wall street. as the big picture for tonight for more information on the stories we covered visit our website to tom hartman dot com free speech dot org r t dot com you can also check out our two you tube channels there are links of tom harkin dot com both this entire show is also available as a free video podcast on i tunes and we have a free tell her i phone and i pad app if you have still it's honest feedback and twitter of tom underscore our facebook at tom underscore our blogs message boards the telephone comment line top heartland and don't forget democracy begins when you show u

i am an advocate of the first amendment. i know the chief of police is an advocate, and we are going to facilitate this demonstration, and we are going to do it in a model way, but there is a line of public safety that we have to carefully maneuver, and i am committed to finding that liolie to make sure they have their rights and protecting the other rights of san franciscans. go>> i have a couple of questions, too. i wanted to ask about a notice on sunday, if there is a written notice given, because i did hear from public comment. goowhen was it given? , did they have to adjust according to the notice? i want to ask about property being damaged. i know you spoke about using a scalpel approach, and i want to know if that was applied on sunday night and what is the impulse is going forward. >> there was one speaker who at 2:00 was told they were provided with written notice. i had asked that the leaflets, i am just going to go by that particular speaker. at least one person was noticed, and i would assume more, and that went

to my great dismay the supreme court said doesn't violate the first amendment. aid first of all yes, the expert advice is broad enough, that term is broad enough to cover time to terrorists not to be a terrorist. and then in answer to the question what about the first amendment, the court said this is preventing people from speaking but what he speak to been on what you have to say. congresses did in the statute is the terrorists have to be radioactive, so their three was this isn't money that is fungible because there wasn't any money. to me the course and to was far-fetched. they said okay, the valuable services training and using alternative dispute methods. so they don't have to come up with her own training using dispute resolution methods that brings up sources to use elsewhere. but it gives them legitimacy. this is terrifying. let me take one step further. at the oral arguments, of any taken was at the time solicitor general so she was argued the case and the case and ensure this is not an answer she thought of on the spur of the moment. one of the justice

and that's how that very same first amendment right is now being eroded in the very same place it was created what is a right to peaceably assemble and petition the government look like to look like a group of women getting penned up and then pepper sprayed without provocation a block or two away from where james madison read the first amendment is the right to peaceably assemble look like seven hundred people getting corralled together on the brooklyn bridge you mean and profit one by one through the night shut down of busses book and processed this isn't what our founding fathers imagine when they drafted those about words the first amendment doesn't say the right to peaceably assemble and free speech zones only where the right to peaceably assemble as long as you're not blocking traffic or the right to peaceably assemble as long as you don't get on the nerves of a rogue n.y.p.d. cop it says the right to peaceably assemble simple and straightforward which is exactly what people have been doing in manhattan and frankly all over the nation for the past three weeks exactly the way our

samuel usian was really confronting the first amendment and this was trying to do a run around the first amendment. if you can't arrest people unless you have the cause and the chief law enforcement agent in the country is saying to everybody it's okay because you can pretend on the pretext i think it is more serious than an individual polling you over for a broken taillight when they really want to see if you have drugs. >> host: what about the independent and intervening action of the judiciary? that is initially the judge approves the material witness. >> guest: the problem there one reason the case was dismissed against john ashcroft is the john ashcroft was it personally implicated in all the misleading information put into this affidavit. the aclu which rose representing abdullah the church never would have issued that order until the actual facts but if in fact they had been given and told he was perfectly willing to cooperate the fbi did call him to testify. >> host: who is representing him at the material witness hearing because it's an adversarial hearing? >> guest: i'm sorry.

the supreme court made the first amendment carve out an enormous. here is another example. there's a group called the humanitarian -- >> host: let's hold the humanitarian law project because we will go to that discussion because that was a decision last year by the supreme court interpreting exactly the constitutional reach of the statute. we will do that right after the break. thank you. >> susan herman the president of aclu and professor at brooklyn law school the book is taking liberties the war on terror and the erosion of american democracy. we were talking about the material support statute and the prohibition that they are from. giving money to a designated terrorist organization is but the legal and has been expanded to include non-monetary aid including expert advice and assistance including providing your own efforts rather than recruiting others to your own efforts in rendering expert advice and assistance is enough in order to fall within the habit of this statute. the question is what if you give money or assistance to non-terrorist activities of a designated t

a first amendment is something that i cherish, we don't want anyone to feel restrained in their ability to speak out and represent their opinion. one other thing, i don't think it is a good use for the demonstrators to be focused on sfpd when the focus is on the top 1% and the wealth occured there. i spent time talking to residents, at any given time we have six to eight police officers in south of market and i don't want to see three at the demonstration. if it continues to go on as it is currently. last, i wanted to touch on another issue that the office is working on, pedestrian safety. i had the unfortunate circumstances of actually witnessing a pedestrian get hit by a car. it really reaffirm my commitment to working on increasing pedestrian safety, particularly in district 64 we have the highest number of collisions between vehicles and cars. and also of howard and full sun, i continue working on this. i want to thank the chief's wife for being here. last night, one of the participants collapsed. the fire department came immediately and was able to serve him as a patient. everyone

>> this is not a first amendment issue. >> no, it is not. i am just saying the principal of free speech is very important. >> free speech is great. if you are going to burger king and the guy is muttering anti-sametic remark u.s. and have a right to fire him. >> that was him before the show. >> he has a right to fire the guy who acts like a character that will farrell would play. i think what we learned from this generally is that we shouldn't be taking political advice from hank williams. it is like taking fashion advice from caw qaddafi or if world war ii is your thing it is like taking it from furor. >> wasn't it him pulling two comparisons out of thin air? he didn't say president obama is hitler. he was saying there were two sworn enemies golfing together. still bad onliy -- bad analogy. >> he doesn't know what an analogy is. easy heard he was clean and sober and take that he wasn't high on life. and furthermore as we discussed in the green room there are certain people who can always wear sunglasses and get away with it. hank williams,

the supreme court made the first amendment enormous. >> host: let's hold that humanitarian because we will go to that discussion because that was envisioned last year by the supreme court regarding the constitutional regional situation and do that after the break >> host: susan herman president of aclu the book this "taking liberties" the war on terror and the erosion of american democracy" we were talking about the material support statute there from giving money to a designated terrorist organization is illegal a statue has been expanded turnon military aid including providing your own efforts expert advice and assistance but the question is what if you give money or assistance to non terrorist activities of a designated terrorist organization to save money is fungible slow to give one part of the visit the the organization. >> the problem is this goes way beyond money they're not giving money to anybody and the central idea of the support laws giving sense to terrorist of course, that is a crime but it was an attempt anyway so let me give you a couple of different examples is a gro

stays safe, if it does not pose a public health hazard, i think in san francisco we facilitate first amendmentow the mayor has been very clear that as long as there is no permanent structures and it is safe, that is all about facilitating first amendment rights. >> i want to add a little bit to the occupyi sf situation, because i did attend a meeting with the

un-american activities committee's in sanford cisco, one of the death knells in that piper's nest of first amendment expression. i am not just here to tell you that the city has the ability to find creative ways to look at public health rules and safety rules and find a way. if the mayor has the political will,occupy can stay in sentences go for as long as we need this movement. there is a long history of american people rising up to tell the robber barons, the captains of industry, that you have to share the wealth. we talked about the populist movement. the great industrial organizing drives of the 1930's. the civil rights movements of the '50s and '60s. i am not just here to tell you that times have changed, that the political landscape has shifted. those leaders that do not stand with the working families will be swept away. finally, i just wanted to save what i really came to tell you about. occupy san francisco has finally raised the issue of the most precious of the 99%, the schoolchildren of san francisco who are denied adequate resources because the 1% simply refuses to pay their fair share

stays safe, if it does not pose a public health hazard, i think in san francisco we facilitate first amendmentow the mayor has been very clear that as long as there is no permanent structures and it is safe, that is all about facilitating first amendment rights. >> i want to add a little bit to the occupyi sf situation, because i did attend a meeting with the supervisors and members of the national lawyers on some of these issues, and some of the individuals who are not representing clearly but are part of that movement. there is no leadership of this movement, and it is hard to negotiate what the parameters are. we must achieve to prepare written instructions so people would be on notice as to what causes seizures and the police department. gooat the same

they want to appear to be supportive of first amendment rights. they were torn about how dirty it was getting, the rodents, some of the fighting happening inside. that is why they issued the order friday and why they have moved in this morning. >> that one gentleman still involved in civil disobedience. >> reporter: there's a woman screaming about something police have done to them. i have to admit i'm hesitant -- >> we are going to take a break from that. and catch up on the traffic situation, especially around that area of downtown oakland, frank ogawa plaza near city hall. >> bart right now not stopping at the 12th street station. sue has more on that. >> right that whole area as amy was saying 12th and bring, 14th and broadway, frank ogawa plaza, they are asking you stay out of that area. bart implications, bart is not stopping at the 12th street station. you can get off at either the lake merit or 19th street bart station. for the time being they are not stopping at the 12th street station. asking that you stay from frank ogawa plaza. 14th br

it's really tough because this is essentially kind of a government and a run and run around the first amendment because you know the first about it protects you from government or government speech but essentially what they did was start pressuring these companies like amazon started with amazon joe lieberman staff all of amazon said you know you should be hosting these people and then after amazon kind of agreed the next day joe lieberman went on t.v. and said well i hope other companies follow suit and so you saw the piece and mastercard almost immediately cut off all these. processing servers and they didn't really say why they said well they violated terms of service this was a legal but it hasn't actually done anything and i think they're just kind of rushed to judgment thinking that publishing classified information is legal when we know that newspapers do it all the time in this country every day the wall street journal or the new york times the washington post classified information that has nothing to do with x. . and they just assume because the government is using words there could b

the industry claims its first amendment rights are being violated. >> why is this a first amendment case? >> the first amendment has basic protections in it. you can't force people to say things that they don't believe, unless there's a compelling public interest. >> reporter: they say the world health organization also puts exhaust fumes on that list. should we warn people about exhaust fumes. >> vegetable juice is also on that list. i don't see any warnings about it. coffee, i don't see any warnings on this machine. >> cell phones not been around for a very long time. >> in order for this hype is false, it's alarming, it's confusing, and it sends people the wrong kind of information. >> reporter: this is actually a watered down version of the original proposal, which would have forced stores to list radiation levels followed by each phone. other cities may follow, if san francisco's law is followed. >>> it is becoming overcast tonight, but tomorrow is going to pan out to be a sunny, and a warmer day, but it comes at a price. the weather warning we should all know about as eyewitness ne

the first, i am introducing legislation to amend the health code and establish regulations for commercial bought walkers that uses city parks to limit the number of dogs that the personal bob walker can talk at once. providing training and safety standards for the profession. i have been working very closely with the number of stakeholders, the parks council, several doctors as well as the impacted departments. i look forward to discussion on this issue. i am also submitting legislation to for ongoing controversy of vending food in the park. there is a lease for a food truck that has been quite controversial in the neighborhood. the legislation would allow the department who plays the food truck on 19th and delores, but would still be able to get revenue instead of transferring it over. the rest i submit. >> thank you, supervisor wiener. supervisor kim. supervisor kim: first of all, it is good to be back in the chambers. i hope that we never make fun of our colleagues that have public policy degrees. it is good to be back and i wanted to and knowledge the upcoming wedding of one of our le

freedom of assembly is the first amendment right. even protests. it's often included as a freedom of association and speak which gives oakland the right to take over the plaza and make demands. >> say no to curfews. >> reporter: tonight constitutional rights were tread on. tv crews man handed by protesterrers, our cameras nearly destroyed after what amounted to an edict by organizers. >> we ask that you point your cameras toward city hall and not toward the tents. >> reporter: claiming we weren't asking consent to videotape in a public space one protester's dog went after a local reporter. what is the protesters response? >> not everybody here unfortunately has proper documentation. there is no expectation of privacy in a public space. >>> you have the constitutional right to be here, to protest, we have the constitutional right of freedom of press. so are you picking which rights to up hold? >> that's -- i appreciate it being asked and to be honest, right now in this moment that was the safe decision we felt we could make. >> reporter: that's righ

because you know the first amendment respects you from government or government speech but essentially what they did was start pressuring these companies like him and it started with amazon joe lieberman staff so you know you should be horse news people and then after amazon read the next day julian went on t.v. and said well i hold one of their company's stock soup and so you saw abuse and mastercard and like almost immediately cut off all use. processing servers and he didn't really say well i do said well if i was terms of service this was illegal but it hasn't actually done anything or and i think they're just kind of rushed the judgments thinking that publishing classified information is legal when we know that newspapers do it all the time especially every day over the last week journal of the york times the washington post post classified information that has nothing to do with us. they just assume because the government is using the exterior words there. something that's wrong now so clearly pressure not to play for all here because you know people always mention as well you ca

that's sun, rain, as well as organize our space so that we can be effective in exercising our first amendment rights of organizing political demonstrations. >> reporter: overnight, 5 protestors were arrested as police and city public works workers moved into dismantle the tents. they even slashed the tires of one of the toe trucks. tony camachos is one of those arrested though he did not go to jail, he was released later. >> there was a struggle, the crowd was fighting the police officers for them not to take me. i was dragged out from the crowd on the cement and then a knee was placed on my head, i hit my head on the street. i was then put in zip ties and placed in a paddy wagon. >> reporter: now a spokesman for the san francisco police department says police have been in contacted with demonstrators all day long trying to reach some kind of agreement to avert an arrest situation like they had last night but, so far, as of this hour we're not aware of any agreement between the police and the protestors so immigration, right now, it's just a waiting game. ken, back to you. >> mark sayer live

we have to apply the first amendment to it. >> other cases they have is from immigration to affirmative action and police surveillance. pete williams joins me now. did you know george washington did not know there was an internet? i thought that was a great interview and great perspective. you have these important cases that the court could make decisions on. >> no better example on what will be the dominant case if they decide to take it up. the founders had explicit ideas of what powers they should have to regulate commerce. the supreme court will have to decide what that means. two appeals courts ruled different ways on this. the question is whether requiring virtually all americans to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. does that go beyond congress's

the city says its first amendment rights -- the industry says its first amendment rights are being violated>> the first amendment has basic protection in it where you can't force people it say things that they don't believe unless there's a compelling public interest. >> the long question is a watered down version of an original proposal that would have forced stores to list the radiation level given off by each phone. >>> it's a sign of the times. thousands of uninsured and under insured people waited hours in line for free medical treatment at a clinic in los angeles. as sandra hughes reports, some people have gone without treatment for years. >> reporter: marvin young hasn't been to a dentist in 15 years. he tried to get into the annual free clinic in los angeles for the last two. this year wasn't taking any chances. >> i started four days ago i camped out. >> reporter: about 60% of the people coming need dental care many here because the state will no longer pay for it. >> it's really hard. i'm in pain. >> reporter: 3200 dentists, doctors and eye specialists are volunteering their time

it has become much more difficult to exercise first amendment rights. and the other thing that has changed his in a kind of retreat from poverty. there have been changes that affect how we have access to public space. and i think it is important when it those laws are used against people exercising their first amendment rights that we consider all the changes that we have maybe swept through in the last decade, which really affected the way citizens have access to public space. and now the time to address those mistakes and to call them out, and these protests now or the occasion to do that. thank you. supervisor avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. supervisor avalos, supervisor kim. i am on the executive board of united educators of san francisco. i am not just here to tell you the 6000 educators in our public school system is strongly support this resolution in occupysf, and i am not just here to tell you that the occupied movement in san francisco as part of a long, long tradition in our city defending the people's r

so, would that not be protected by the first amendment? kruger: justice breyer -- justice breyer: your view is it's not protected? kruger: it's not protected. i'd like -- i think there are two responses that are relevant to how this court will resolve that question in this case. first of all, if the court were to accept the rule that petitioner would ask it to adopt, we would never ask the question whether or not the church has a reason for firing an employee that's rooted in religious doctrine. their submission is that the hiring and firing decisions with respect to parochial school teachers and with respect to priests is categorically off limits. and we think that that is a rule that is insufficiently attentive to the relative public and private interests at stake, interests that this court has repeatedly recognized are important in determining freedom of association claims. justice breyer: so that, in fact, if they want to choose to the priest, you could go to the catholic church and say they have to be women. i mean, you couldn't say t

these questions for this month, covering pension costs and health care costs and first amendment rights are very important and we should get started. >> for the first question, we go to supervisor farrell. >> assuming proposition c passes this november, the city is anticipated to save $1.30 billion from the higher pension fund contributions among other changes. this will continue to be an issue as projections indicate the pension costs may be over $700 billion by the year 2015, according to the most recent estimates. what plans do you have to continue the conversation with potential reforms? >> thank you for that question. retiree costs include pensions and health care. as daunting as these costs are, we are in a better position with the pension benefits than retiree health care. we have the unfunded liability for retiree health care to the order of $4.40 billion. this will create a balance on the health service's board that we expect will lead to more responsible designs that will slow the rate of cost in the near future. we also require that active employees work towards finding healt

the core purpose of the first amendment against the government.n the other hand i think the question is, is it only to encourage illegal behavior. or if it is just to communicate the caps are around, is he saying, i am just letting people know and some people get nervous and freeze up when cops come nearby. >> do they give a ticket when the cops are there? does that person get a ticket? >> are you saying this is a slippery slope? >> i have to be honest, after i have been hearing -- >> i keep forgetting you are a lawyer. >> i am so glad you forgot. >> you should also not forget i have been in the car with her. not only does he like to speed, she likes to hit things. you can take those warnings anytime you can get them, blondey. >> that's why i am lobbying for the first amendment protection in this. >> i see where it is coming. >> i'm tired of this topic. >>> the next topic, the university of california teacher eases union and fighting to block on-line classes to save their jobs. the state's financially struggling universities has sought to cut cost

captioning provided by the first amendment center, funded by the freedom forum. welcome to speaking freely, a weekly conversation about free expression, the arts, and america. i'm ken paulson. our guest today has written challenging and provocative plays over the past four decades, earning three pulitzer prizes, two tonys, and a reputation for art with an impact. please welcome edward albee. [applause] i was struck by the number of times people have objected to your work. and yet, i've sat here with people whose careers have been marked by censorship and challenges. i'm not sure i've ever met anyone whose very first work at age 12 was censored by his adoptive mother. what was that about? well, you see, i started writing poetry when i was about eight, and she didn't read poetry. but when she found out that i'd written a three-act sex farce... [laughter] at the age of 12, or to be fair about it, probably 12 1/2, though still i didn't know very much about farce and practically nothing about sex at that time-- or at least, my knowledge of sex was singular-- [laughter

in many ways, the way we look at our first amendment, we are very tolerant about our first amendment in many ways. we say you can say things and the first amendment is there to protect you from controversial things. we don't question the fact that you can study very vicious philosophy sprit think of how many hundreds of millions of people were killed by communists in the 20th century but we don't outlaw that. often people are annoyed when i talk about personal liberty. this is someone might use their personal liberty to practice they have a i don't endorse. freedom of choice of a dozen other people is not an endorsement. you can read something and you have the first amendment right and that does not mean we endorse those things. if we can allow individuals to pick and choose their intellectual lives and their spiritual lives, why did we get to this point where we are obsessed with regulating people's personal habits and dependent upon the government to take care of us. we have accepted the notion that government can protect us from ourselves. it is very dangerous. it is a careless at

there is a big line before expressing your first amendment free speech and bullying.t he -- he was expressing what he thought, not bullying in any sense. >> an interesting case. we thank you all for sharing it with us and we hope you will keep us update. >> we will do it. thanks, shannon. >> after the break. a unique dog show with an i'm so ugly i'm cute category. can't wait to see it. plus, why did the sea lion cross the road? and no, it is not a joke. we'll explain, right after this. so who ordered the cereal that can help lower olesterol and who ordered the yummy cereal? yummy. [ woman ] lower cholesterol. [ man 2 ] yummy. i got that wrong didn't i? [ male announcer ] want great taste and whole gin oats that can help lower cholesterol? honey nut cheerios. listen to this. three out of four americans don't get enough vegetables. so here's five bucks to help you buy v8 juice. five bucks. that's a lot of green. go to v8juice.com for coupons. you can count on us. i've got to tell susie ! the vending machine on elm is almost empty. i'm on it, boss. new pony sorry ! we ar

i am taking a stance of protecting first amendment. it is one of the most valuable rights we have in this country, and we should always do what we can to support that. really quickly, last week i met a dpw worker who retired last february, and he was in one of the homeless centers and did not have a bit for that night. it shows many of the city workers live in the balance that many of us in the 99% are in. there are things he has, but we often live in the balance of being able to make our rent payments every month, and we support our city workers who do this work every day, and when they retire, i'm not sure there will have a roof over their heads. everyone in the city is very cognizant of that. we need to work towards a solution. a solution exists. i know we can do it, and i am glad everyone is at the table to make that happen. i think one of the public, enters had ventur commenters hae task force. we will be coming out that the next few weeks. thank you again to the co- sponsors and supervisor avalos for bringing this forward. i look

request approval of first amendment to license no. 14987 with the san francisco community fishing association, amending the fee schedule and term of the license for space located at pier 45 fish processing center, shed d-4. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is michael, a member of the maritime division. the item before you concerns the san francisco community fishing association which entered into a licensing agreement with the port in may of this year to operate the port's ice machine at pier 45 and selling bulk ice to fishermen and fish processors. the association is a group of local fishermen who came together to fill a need that rose when the previous ice machine operator vacated pier 45. the original license term is month to month for one year, through may 2012, and the fee is $2,192 per month. which is within the perimeter rates approved by the port commission. the association has paid this be on time and is in good standing with the port. after four months of operation, the licensee found itself approximately $13,000 in the red and realize the financial arrangements were not su

, not the second amendment or the third amendment, it's the first amendment.and that was put into place a long time before the 1947 national security act which created the cia. so i think it predates and it's a fundamental building block of american journalism. no one likes to admit that an editor and a reporter in the united states have the freedom to write what they want. and if we lose that, we lose the uniqueness about the american system. because if we start reining in the american press in this way, it is the most fundamental change we could have as a society spent but it is one thing to be able to get "the new york times" bureau to come in to the white house and talk to them and actually convince an editor not to run a story. >> right. >> and another deal, let's save julian a son and wikileaks actually sat at the table a couple years ago, who didn't seem to care whether or not they identified people in their cables. >> right. >> what are they to do in that case? >> it's a more complicated case, because you have to get into the issue of who's a journalis

i know we're all very conscious of the first amendment. this has been a narrowly drafted ordinance. i will be supporting it today. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. our into a bank supervisor cohen for bringing this forward. i'm proud -- i -- the necessary evidence when passing something like this, i understand the point, but i believe the author of this ordinance has worked very closely with our legal counsel to make sure this is a piece of legislation that passes legal muster and i will defer to the judgment of the city attorney's office who was really involved in the crafting of this legislation. with respect to how much evidence of an injury or harm is needed, i think we do have a responsibility to consumers as a whole that when we see language that is misleading, that we take a position and make sure that information is correct. in fact, accurate information is provided to consumers. i don't know that we have to wait until there is an actual injury to make that happen. in terms of the injuries that could come because of this information, i think it is something we ha

what is more troubling to me are the many violations of our privacy and first amendment freedoms that are not being y bfficiently protested precisey because they are being carried out in set vcf1 o and most people are laboring under the illusion that if you are not suspected of terroriunj, huge not want to be accused enemy combatants locked son in. uantanamo that you have nothing to fear. unfortunately nothing could be and srther from the truth becau the new surveillance powers that were unleashed post 9/torn starting with the patriot act including thanks to whistlonelowing and investiloste reporting was not the far reaching. overinnent y brveillae proeroam. we know there was a supersecret o omestic spl png p national security agency. what the aclu and bob barr and conserroutive organizations -- let me mention conservative citizens. rosons collaborating with the aclu and civil libertarians in looking at those f1 o omplaints including. unner's rights organizations and the eagle forum and americans for tax reformienthe american conservative union to name just incs mw have concurred that