BAKERSFIELD - In a letter sent today to city officials in Kern County, California, the American Civil Liberties Union said it may take legal action if officials do not remove Internet filtering software from public library computers within 10 days.

The ACLU said that the software installed by the county blocks access to a wide range of socially valuable, constitutionally protected speech on the Internet. The county library system provides at least 50 computer terminals in more than 25 library branches.

"We have been negotiating in good faith with Kern County since last August to try to resolve constitutional problems with the Internet filtering software they are using," said ACLU National Staff Attorney Ann Beeson, who signed the letter to county officials on behalf of the national ACLU and the ACLU's of Northern and Southern California.

"The time has come for Kern County to realize that there is simply no way for a software program to make legal distinctions between protected and unprotected speech," Beeson concluded.

The controversy began in July 1996, after the Kern County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution to block online material defined as "harmful to minors" under California state law. Upon learning that the board's solution involved installation of a filtering program called "Bess," the ACLU contacted officials to advise them of the free speech problems with this approach.

Although the developers of the Bess software had earlier informed the board that "we cannot customize [the software] to filter `harmful material' by web site as defined in California Penal Code Section 313," the board went ahead with the program. Only after hearing from the ACLU did the board go back to the makers of Bess and ask unsuccessfully that the company "refine" the software.

"We continue to hope that this issue can be resolved without litigation, but we are prepared to go to federal court to protect the free speech rights of library patrons and Internet speakers," said Peter Eliasberg, an attorney with the ACLU of Southern California.

"Frankly, we are surprised at the Board's action," he added. "As the American Library Association has long recognized, libraries should be in the business of providing information of all kinds, not censoring it."

In its letter to the county, the ACLU noted that officials in the city of San Jose and in Santa Clara County, California had recently decided against installing filtering programs on public computer terminals in its libraries.

The issue has drawn cities across the country into a national debate about whether library systems should limit what people can see on the Internet. A library in Loudon County, Virginia is currently facing a legal challenge from local library patrons after adopting a similar Internet blocking policy.

The ACLU is considering an intervention in that lawsuit on behalf of online speakers who are blocked from reaching library patrons, Ann Beeson said.

Ultimately, the library controversy may lead back to a landmark Supreme Court ruling in Reno v. ACLU, striking down a federal Internet censorship law that contemplated restrictions on access to online speech. In its sweeping decision, issued in June 1997, the Court confirmed that the Internet is analogous to books, not broadcast, and is deserving of the highest First Amendment protection.

"Web sites accessed from a library's computer are just like the books on a library's shelves," said Ann Brick, Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Northern California. "The constitution prevents the government from censoring either one."

The ACLU of Southern California today filed a federal lawsuit (Beauchamp vs Los Angeles County MTA) against the Metropolitan Transit Authority and a bus company, Ryder/ATE, Inc., on behalf of five disabled bus riders in Los Angeles County charging that these transportation agencies do not adequately serve disabled riders. The lawsuit charges that the MTA and Ryder/ATE are violating the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act and the 1974 Rehabilitation Act by discriminating against riders with mobility impairments.

Ryder/ATE operates several bus lines for the MTA in the Long Beach and Artesia areas of Los Angeles County. Plaintiffs are asking for a declaration that both Ryder/ATE and the MTA have violated federal law. They are also asking for an injunction requiring defendants to give equal access to disabled passengers and to eliminate any discrimination against persons with disabilities who use their buses.

The five plaintiffs are disabled passengers who use wheelchairs or other assistive devices. Although they have repeatedly complained about defendants' failure to accommodate people with disabilities, none of the alleged conditions have been improved. According to the lawsuit, Ryder/ATE, Inc. and the MTA have refused to accommodate disabled bus riders, subjecting them to hazardous conditions that have resulted in physical injuries, humiliation, emotional distress, and monetary loss. Specifically, Ryder/ATE, Inc. and the MTA have failed to repair and maintain the equipment which allows passengers using wheel chairs to board and exit buses. The doors used by disabled passengers are frequently malfunctioning or broken. The clamps used to secure wheelchairs of disabled riders are frequently missing, broken or malfunctioning.

The ACLU is also charging that Ryder/ATE, Inc. and MTA bus drivers are not adequately trained to serve disabled passengers or to operate the equipment which the disabled need to use the buses. Plaintiffs allege that bus drivers often fail or refuse to pick them up at bus stops and that the bus stops are poorly maintained, making it very difficult for disabled riders to board and leave the buses safely.

The federal lawsuit claims that these transportation agencies are violating the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act and the 1974 Rehabilitation Act. The ADA was enacted to dismantle all forms of discrimination which prevent disabled individuals from obtaining opportunities, participation, independence and economic self-sufficiency. Further, because Ryder/ATE, Inc. and the MTA receive federal funds, they are subject to the 1990 Rehabilitation Act which demands full inclusion for individuals with disabilities by those agencies receiving federal funds.

Ryder/ATE, Inc., a Delaware corporation, operates at least seven bus lines for the Metropolitan Transit Authority, including bus lines regularly used by plaintiffs. The MTA was created by the California State Legislature to administer, plan, and provide transportation services for Los Angeles County.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California today announced a partial victory in Bacus vs Palo Verde Unified School District [EDCV 981 RT (VAPx)], a federal lawsuit filed January 6 on behalf of three teachers with the Palo Verde Unified School District in Blythe, California.

The teachers are seeking injunctive and declarative relief to stop the district from violating the Establishment Clause of the United States constitution, which forbids government agencies from endorsing any religion.

On January 9, the chair of the Margaret White School Site Council sent the ACLU of Southern California a letter stating that the site council had voluntarily agreed to "cease and desist from including an opening prayer at our site council meetings." The school board is expected to decide this week whether it will voluntarily stop including prayers at school board meetings.

If school officials refuse to discontinue these prayers voluntarily, the ACLU will ask the court to declare the use of sectarian prayers by PVUSD officials a violation of the First Amendment and to enjoin the school district and its officials from sponsoring, facilitating, or engaging in prayer at official meetings.

"By opening its meetings with sectarian prayers, Palo Verde School District officials are endorsing one religion over all others," said ACLU Slaff Fellow Peter Eliasberg. "This action violates our nation's most cherished freedoms."

Plaintiffs' complaint, filed January 6, asked the court to stop PVUSD officials from sponsoring explicitly sectarian prayers at official district meetings. The PVUSD Board of Education holds meetings at least once each month. These meetings give parents, students and other citizens the chance to express their views on school district policies.

The lawsuit was filed after repeated attempts by the teachers, who are not Christian, to stop the district from opening school board and other district meetings with Christian prayers. Despite plaintiffs' requests, PVUSD officials continued to open meetings with prayers ending with the words, "in Jesus name we pray,"

In addition to the regular school board meetings, Christian prayers had also been included at the site council meetings. These site councils, required under the California Education Code, develop school plans for issues such as curriculum, staff development, and use of certain state education funds. The January 9 letter indicates this practice will cease.

Said ACLU attorney Dan Tokaji, "We are pleased that some of the defendants in this lawsuit have acted so promptly to cease this blatant endorsement of religion. We hope that all other defendants will follow their lead and agree to abide by the constitution of the United States of America. If they do not, we will seek a court order upholding the principle that church and state must be kept separate." If defendants do not voluntarily agree to cease prayers at school board meetings, plaintiffs expect to schedule a preliminary injunction hearing for February 23 before Judge Robert Timlin at the U.S. District Court in Riverside.