News & Commentary

Ruling in an ACLU case, a federal judge has struck down a state law that was used by the Town of Richmond to repeatedly remove former Congressional candidate Rod Driver’s political signs from private property during the 2006 election. In a 25-page opinion, Judge William Smith agreed with the ACLU that the statute violated Driver’s First Amendment rights.

Supporting the public’s right to know, the Rhode Island ACLU has today filed a brief urging the R.I. Supreme Court to reverse the imposition of $15,000 in fines against Attorney General Patrick Lynch for public comments he made during the “lead paint public nuisance” case. The brief argues that the fines violated not only Lynch’s First Amendment right to free speech, but also the public’s right to hear the “views of attorneys concerning pending litigation in which the attorneys are involved.”

In an important victory for the public’s right to know, the R.I. Department of Corrections (DOC) has significantly modified regulations governing media access that it had proposed in September.  At the time, the ACLU had argued that the rules would “allow for a regime of censorship over the news media in their efforts to interview inmates and inform the public.” The revised regulations, being filed with the Secretary of State’s office this week, favorably address virtually every concern that the RI ACLU and others had raised in testimony to the DOC.

The ACLU of Rhode Island today announced a favorable settlement in its lawsuit against Rhode Island College for censoring a sign display supporting reproductive freedom that was sponsored by a student women’s rights group on campus. The signs were taken down after administrators received objections about them from a priest. The ACLU lawsuit, filed by volunteer attorney Jennifer Azevedo, had argued that the college violated the First Amendment rights of the student group, the Women’s Studies Organization (WSO) of RIC, and its three student officers. The highlight of the settlement is an award by RIC of $5,000 to the student group.

The R.I. Department of Corrections is holding a public hearing this Monday evening, September 10th on proposed regulations that the R.I. ACLU argues, in submitted testimony, would “allow for a regime of censorship over the news media in their efforts to interview inmates and inform the public.” The proposal under consideration is a significant revision of the DOC’s current rules governing media access.

The ACLU of Rhode Island today filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of former Congressional candidate Rod Driver, seeking a court order and damages against the Town of Richmond and police chief Raymond Driscoll for repeatedly removing Driver’s political signs from private property during the last election. The suit, filed by ACLU volunteer attorney Richard A. Sinapi, claims that the defendants’ actions amounted to a willful violation of Driver’s First Amendment rights.

The ACLU of Rhode Island today announced the favorable settlement of its lawsuit on behalf of ACI inmate Wesley Spratt, who since 2003 had been barred by the Department of Corrections from preaching during Christian religious services at the state prison. Spratt had been preaching at ACI services for seven years before he was unilaterally stopped from doing so based on vague and generalized “security” concerns. A federal district judge initially upheld the ban, but in April the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed that ruling and ordered a trial on the merits of the case. The settlement obviates the need for a trial.

In an important victory for religious freedom, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston has reversed a lower court ruling that allowed the Department of Corrections to bar an inmate from preaching during Christian religious services at the state prison.

The Rhode Island ACLU today called “shocking” the position advanced by Rhode Island College (RIC) in court papers that RIC does not have to abide by the First Amendment – or any other constitutional restriction, for that matter – because it is not a government agency for civil rights purposes.