"What are we talkin' bout? Practice? We talkin' bout practice, man. We not even talking about the game," said former NBA superstar Allen Iverson almost ten years ago. His now memorable words came to mind when I read that Los Angeles officials are negotiating with Occupy protesters to break down the camp at City Hall Park and relocate it. Why will the many weeks' long peaceful protest and encampment be closed down, you may ask? Is it concern over public health? Nope. Is it a threat to public safety? Think again. It's the lawn.
"That's a piece of dirt, it's not sustainable ecologically and it's only going to get worse and worse," Chief Beck said, talking about the lawn surrounding City Hall. "We need to find either a different location or a different medium for them to use."
What are we talkin' bout? The lawn? We talkin' bout the lawn, people!
In cities across the country, mayors are looking for, and often finding, ways to justify trumping the First Amendment right of protesters. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg explained that the increasing number of tents erected in the park made it difficult for the emergency services to ensure the protesters' safety, and the New York police then moved in, under cover of night, to clear the park of protesters and tents. There are reasons to question just how persuasive Bloomberg's justification was, but it at least sounds weighty.
Our local elected officials deserve credit, tremendous credit, for working with the occupiers in instead of resorting to forcible evictions and mass arrests, as we've seen in other "Occupied" cities. Our elected officials have remained true to our constitutional values, and we applaud them for choosing a different path from their peers in New York and Oakland.
But, in balancing competing rights and interests, our elected officials must remember that on the one hand there is the First Amendment and the rights of free speech and assembly -- fundamental rights that are critical to the health and well-being of our democracy -- and on the other hand there is, say it with me, the lawn and its health and appearance.
(To be fair, as City Hall Park General Manager John Kirk Mukri outlined in a letter addressed to Mayor Villaraigosa: "Soil has become compacted and extremely dry in turf areas and around trees. Trees and other plants are suffering from a lack of water and nutrients... Physical damage has been caused to the irrigation system and controllers.")
I am from Southern California, born and raised here, and I know how fanatical we can be about our lawns. There is a teachable moment here: not only about whether the lawn surrounding City Hall was a wise use of water and money in a time of economic crisis, but more important, about how few interests should ever be permitted to trump our First Amendment rights.
What are we talkin' bout? The First Amendment? We talkin' bout the First Amendment, people!
Streets, parks, and other public areas and forums have been held open to the public for speech and assembly "from time immemorial." City Hall Park should be no different; in fact, it has been designated as parkland since 1927.
The occupiers are using City Hall Park for a constitutionally hallowed purpose: they are exercising their rights of speech and assembly to bring social, economic, and political problems to the forefront of City Hall's attention and to attention of the local community. By their continued presence, they are attempting to prevent these problems from being ignored and omitted from our political discussions. Whatever one may think of the merits of the protest and its message, there is no doubt that the occupiers have sparked a citywide and indeed nationwide debate. This is precisely what the First Amendment is designed to do.
I fear, and we should all fear, that in relocating the occupiers the City will undermine free speech and make it more difficult for those assembled to reach their intended audience -- all in the name of protecting the lawn.
Let's remain calm. There is something to see here. And it's our democracy at work. So let's remember that we are talking about the First Amendment, people.

By playing this YouTube-hosted clip, YouTube will place a long-term cookie on your computer. View YouTube's privacy statement to learn more. View the ACLU's privacy statement.

Complaint Alleges High-Level Staff Knew Gangs of Deputies Beat Inmates and Condoned Cover-Ups

The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Southern California (ACLU/SC) and attorneys from Paul Hastings, LLP today filed a federal class action lawsuit charging Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca and his top command staff with condoning a long-standing, widespread pattern of violence by deputies against inmates in the Los Angeles County Jails.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two named plaintiffs, Alex Rosas and Jonathan Goodwin, who were savagely beaten and threatened with violence by deputies of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (L.A.S.D.) while they were pretrial detainees in the jail. As detailed in the complaint, the treatment of Rosas and Goodwin is not isolated – there are dozens of reports of similar brutality in the jails. The lawsuit seeks both injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of all present and future inmates of the jails.

“Sheriff Lee Baca, Undersheriff Paul Tanaka, and Chief Dennis Burns are responsible for ensuring that their subordinates do not engage in a pattern of unspeakable acts of violence against inmates,” said Peter Eliasberg, legal director of the ACLU/SC. “But in the face of a longstanding pattern of deputy abuse they have deliberately and knowingly failed to put in place the basic pieces of an accountability system – sound policies on the use of force, adequate training, careful investigation of force incidents and a rigorous system of discipline. This suit is directed at them because they have allowed deputies to go unpunished, covered up their behavior and for years made no effort to reform this broken system.”

Los Angeles County has the largest jail system in the nation, with an average daily population of 15,000 inmates. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, charges that Baca and his command staff had full knowledge of this pattern of violence, and sought to conceal it from the public. The suit alleges violations of the inmates’ rights under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, and pretrial detainees’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition of punishment prior to conviction.

“A sick culture of deputy-on-inmate hyper-violence has been flourishing for decades in the darkness of the L.A. County Jails, and this lawsuit will continue to help expose that culture to the light of day,” said Margaret Winter, associate director of the ACLU National Prison Project. “Because Sheriff Baca has recently taken an important first step -- publicly admitting there’s an enormous problem and expressing his commitment to reform -- we hope the sheriff and the ACLU will be able to reach a court-ordered injunction that will bring about profound and far-reaching changes.”

In September 2011, the ACLU issued a report documenting more than 70 recent cases of extreme deputy violence, and shortly thereafter the public learned the FBI had launched a far-reaching criminal probe into deputy-on-inmate violence in the county jails. In December 2011, the county Board of Supervisors convened a commission to investigate and make recommendations.

In addition to ACLU lawyers, a team of Paul Hastings attorneys led by Donna Melby and John Durrant will provide pro bono legal assistance to the plaintiffs in this case.

“We are honored to partner with the ACLU in bringing this worthy lawsuit,” said Durrant. “What we are talking about here goes well beyond having a ‘tough’ jail. There is a well-documented, chronic problem of brutality in the jails that must be redressed.”

To view complaint go to: www.aclusocal.org/rosas.