LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, together with the law firm of Ross, Dixon & Bell, today filed a federal civil rights lawsuit challenging the blatantly discriminatory treatment of two Afghan-American, Southern California college students at the hands of AMC Theaters located at 'The Block' in Orange County.

The young men, Mohammad Sayed and Omar Zazia, both Cal State Fullerton undergraduates, were waiting for the opening credits to start, speaking amongst themselves in both English and Pashto. They were not being disruptive and were speaking in a tone that was consistent with the other patrons. They noticed a security guard staring at them intently. The security guard later returned with an usher and asked them to leave the theater. The only stated reason for their expulsion: they were ?speaking in a foreign tongue? and looked ?suspicious.?

?This is a case of out and out discrimination,? said Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. ?As a nation, we long ago settled the issue of discrimination in public accommodations. Not only did we decide it was immoral and contrary to fundamental American values, but we also made it illegal. AMC Theaters is now on notice that they are not above the law.?

The plaintiffs were paraded through the crowded theater lobby by security and escorted out of the building. Their requests to speak with a manager were rebuffed. Once outside, they were met by more than a half-dozen City of Orange police officers. The officer threatened the young men with arrest if they were to return to ?The Block? later that night.

?We couldn't believe it,? said Mohammad Sayed, a plaintiff in the legal action. ?We had just been kicked out of the theater with no explanation and no refund. We had not committed a crime and we were not disruptive or disrespectful. We weren't even allowed to speak with a manager.?

AMC Theaters is one of the largest multiplex theater chains in the nation, with over 200 theaters throughout the country, and 33 in California alone.

?We have added this case to our pro bono workload because we believe it is an extremely significant case,? said Kevin Keiffer, associate at the Orange County firm, Ross, Dixon & Bell. ?It speaks volumes about the times we live in. It reminds us that despite our troubled times, we cannot bow to fear. We cannot allow discrimination like that faced by Mohammad and Omar to become part of our everyday lives.?

?Sometimes I think that people in power get away with this sort of thing because they pick on people who are not aware of their rights,? said Omar Zazia, also a plaintiff in the suit. ?People who get mistreated are sometimes afraid to speak up. But one of the things that being an American has taught me is that you have to stand up for your rights. In other countries, you may not have any rights, but here you do, and I want people to know that you don't have to sacrifice your dignity when you come to this country.?

The lawsuit seeks to compel AMC Theaters to take all necessary steps to ensure that such discriminatory conduct does not occur in the future.

Today, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's decision to dismiss an equal protection claim brought against the Arizona Department of Corrections by a same-sex couple who were not allowed to hug or kiss during jail visits even though opposite-sex couples enjoyed the same right. The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and the National Center for Lesbian Rights argued the case on behalf of an Arizona same-sex couple who brought the suit after they were not allowed to hug during visits.
Karl Whitmire and his long-term partner, William Lyster, are divided by Lyster's incarceration. Despite the fact that opposite-sex partners can hug and kiss during visits, Mr. Whitmire and his partner were not allowed to show such affection during their visits. An Arizona Department of Corrections policy states that, "The following conduct shall be prohibited at visits...Same-sex kissing, embracing (with the exception of relatives or immediate family) or petting." After hugging his partner during a visit, Mr. Whitmire was warned that if it happened again, "it will be a long time" before he would see his partner again. Mr. Whitmire together with his partner filed suit against the State of Arizona on the grounds that their rights were violated by the state's discriminatory policy. A lower court sided with the state in dismissing the suit and the plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Prison administrators can have reasonable rules to protect prison safety, but they can't arbitrarily penalize prisoners and visitors on the basis of sexual orientation," said Martha Matthews, Bohnett Attorney with the ACLU/SC.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that the policy may violate Whitmire's constitutional right to equal protection.
"This ruling underscores the basic principle that no matter what the context, the government cannot treat lesbian and gay people differently simply because some people disapprove of same-sex relationships," said Courtney Joslin, Staff Attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
The case will now return to the lower court for further proceedings.

LOS ANGELES - After encountering strong opposition from free speech and dance music groups, AB 1941, the so-called "Anti-Rave" legislation has died in committee. The bill, originally introduced and passed by the state Assembly, was heard by the state Senate Public Safety Committee and did not produce the required number of votes to make it out of committee.

AB 1941 would have singled out electronic music promoters and "rave" parties for differential treatment, requiring them to undergo a vague and burdensome permit acquisition process. The legislation required promoters to "present evidence before the issuance of the permit showing that the promoter is sufficiently knowledgeable about illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia." It also sought to impose new liability burdens on event organizers.

"Singling out a specific type of music event, in this case electronic music, over another is an attempt to stifle speech and cultural expression," said Tenoch Flores, Media Relations Manager for the ACLU of Southern California. "The government cannot and should not be in the business of determining what kind of parties it likes or what kind of music it deems a 'threat'."

A coalition of free speech and dance organizations including the ACLU/SC, Electronic Music Defense and Education Fund, The Drug Policy Alliance, The San Francisco Late Night Coalition, and Dance Safe voiced opposition to the bill and launched grassroots efforts to defeat the legislation. The ACLU of Southern California helped organize a letter writing campaign after it was apparent that the bill would face little opposition in the state Assembly. The campaign picked up as the as the bill was introduced in the state Senate.

"This legislation represented nothing more than an attempt to criminalize electronic dance music and youth culture," said Flores. "The bill would have denied one group of people the same level of freedom that others enjoy. Most people attend electronic music events to listen to the music, dance and meet other like-minded individuals; their rights should not be snuffed out simply because dance culture makes a few legislators uncomfortable."