Legislation

The distribution or display of constitutionally protected conduct cannot be elevated to a criminal offense solely because of how the person viewing it reacts, yet this bill would unconstitutionally punish individuals based on a prediction of how they respond to certain types of protected speech.

This critical legislation would have guaranteed that access to the internet remained non-discriminatory and that internet service providers couldn't choose what sites you have access to or how quickly you can access them.

The ACLU has previously opposed legislation which would give broad authority to municipalities to regulate and prohibit “live entertainment,” since such discretion and authority has great potential to raise serious First Amendment concerns. This bill would give this authority to the town of Bristol.

A campaign finance bill introduced only in the last week of the 2019 session raised important First Amendment concerns, prompting the ACLU’s opposition.

This bill would have clarified the current tax exemption that exists for the sales of books by their authors to apply to works of non-fiction as well as fiction.

We testified in favor of this critical legislation, noting that open and equal access is a cornerstone to the ubiquitously used and indispensable medium of the internet.

Rather than confronting the issues that cause individuals to engage in panhandling, this bill sought to ban the practice instead and would have fined a motorist for passing anything out of their window to another individual while in an “active lane of travel.”

Article 5, Section 9 of the first version of the proposed FY 2020 budget included, amongst other potential taxes on "services," a proposed 7% sales tax on "lobbying services", which we argued amounted to a direct levy on the exercise of political speech, a quintessential First Amendment activity.

In April, the ACLU testified in opposition to a resolution encouraging "law enforcement officials to recognize white nationalist and neo-nazi groups as terrorist organizations." While these groups may indeed promote odious views, the First Amendment nevertheless protects their right to speak.