SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
June, 04 2009, 04:12pm EDT
Contact:
Rachel Myers, ACLU National, (212) 549-2689 or 2666; media@aclu.org
Hedy Weinberg, ACLU of Tennessee, (615) 320-7142 or 480-5572
Tennessee Schools End Censorship Of Gay Educational Web Sites After ACLU Lawsuit
NASHVILLE, Tenn.
Dozens
of Tennessee schools have restored access to online information about
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues, just over two weeks
after the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against two
Tennessee school districts for unconstitutionally blocking student
access to such sites. The company that provides Internet filtering
software to as many as 107 Tennessee schools has adjusted the software
to allow access to a variety of educational and political LGBT Web
sites that were blocked before the lawsuit was filed.
"All we ever wanted was to be able
to get information out about LGBT issues, like what our legal rights
are or what scholarships are available for LGBT students, so I'm really
happy that the schools are finally making our Web access fair and
balanced," said Bryanna Shelton, a 16-year-old student at Fulton High
School in Knoxville and a plaintiff in the case. "These Web sites were
never something dirty or inappropriate in any way and shouldn't ever
have been treated like they were."
On May 19, the ACLU filed the case
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools and Knox County Schools on behalf
of two high school students in Nashville, one student in Knoxville and
a high school librarian in Knoxville who is also the advisor of the
school's Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA).
About 80 percent of Tennessee public
schools, including those in the two districts being sued, use filtering
software provided by Education Networks of America (ENA). Until
yesterday, the software's default setting blocked sites categorized as
LGBT, including the sites of many well-known LGBT organizations.
However, the filter did not block access to Web sites that urge LGBT
persons to change their sexual orientation or gender identity through
so-called "reparative therapy" or "ex-gay" ministries - a practice
denounced as dangerous and harmful to young people by such groups as
the American Psychological Association and the American Medical
Association.
Last night, Knox County Schools
Superintendent Jim McIntyre released a statement saying that ENA was no
longer blocking the LGBT category. The ACLU believes this change is in
effect in all Tennessee districts that use the ENA software.
Additionally, ENA's Web site shows that it has made a similar change
for schools throughout the state of Indiana.
"Up until now, these schools were
practicing unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, plain and simple.
It was keeping students from accessing information about everything
from their legal rights to statistics they needed for current events
assignments," said Catherine Crump, staff attorney with the ACLU First
Amendment Working Group and lead attorney on the case. "We're pleased
that these schools are finally living up to their legal obligation to
allow the free and open exchange of ideas and information."
The ACLU first learned about the
discriminatory filtering from Andrew Emitt, a Knoxville high school
student who discovered the problem while trying to search for LGBT
scholarships. Internet filtering software is mandated in public schools
by Tennessee law, which requires schools to implement software to
restrict information that is obscene or harmful to minors. However, the
"LGBT" filter category does not include material which is sexually
gratuitous and already included in the "pornography" filtering
category.
"Schools that censor educational
information out of some misguided assumption that anything about LGBT
people is automatically sexual or inappropriate are doing a disservice
to their students," said Tricia Herzfeld, staff attorney with the ACLU
of Tennessee. "We aren't dropping the lawsuit right away, but we
certainly look forward to getting assurances from both school boards in
this case that they will respect students' rights and refrain from this
sort of censorship in the future."
Due to the change in policy,
students in Tennessee can now access the Web sites of many well-known
national LGBT organizations which were previously blocked, including:
* Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)
* The Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN)
* Human Rights Campaign (HRC)
* Marriage Equality USA
* The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)
* Dignity USA (an organization for LGBT Catholics)
* The Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN)
* Human Rights Campaign (HRC)
* Marriage Equality USA
* The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)
* Dignity USA (an organization for LGBT Catholics)
In addition to Crump and
Herzfeld, attorneys on the case are Chris Hansen of the ACLU First
Amendment Working Group and Christine Sun of the ACLU LGBT Project.
The plaintiffs are Nashville
students Keila Franks and Emily Logan, Knoxville student Bryanna
Shelton, and Karyn Storts-Brinks, a Knoxville high school librarian and
faculty sponsor for her school's GSA.
More information about the case,
including the ACLU's complaint and a video featuring one of the student
plaintiffs, is available online at: www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/39346res20090413.html
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Trump Admin Kicks Undocumented Kids Out of Head Start, Community Health Programs
"Head Start programs strive to make every child feel welcome, safe, and supported, and reject the characterization of any child as 'illegal,'" said one critic of the move.
Jul 10, 2025
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced Thursday that undocumented immigrant children will no longer qualify for Head Start and other federally funded programs that the Trump administration argues are meant to serve American citizens.
HHS formally rescinded a 1998 interpretation of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), the cornerstone of congressional Republicans' so-called "Contract With America" and the fulfillment of then-Democratic President Bill Clinton's promise to "end welfare as we know it."
That long-standing interpretation, HHS said, "improperly extended certain federal public benefits to illegal aliens," thus "undercutting the law by allowing illegal aliens to access programs Congress intended only for the American people."
"For too long, the government has diverted hardworking Americans' tax dollars to incentivize illegal immigration," Health and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in statement. "Today's action changes that—it restores integrity to federal social programs, enforces the rule of law, and protects vital resources for the American people."
The HHS rule change follows a February executive order from President Donald Trump ordering federal agencies to increase restrictions on undocumented immigrants' access to taxpayer-funded services.
In addition to Head Start—the federally funded preschool program that Trump unsuccessfully sought to eliminate from the budget reconciliation legislation he recently signed—the new HHS interpretation applies to all programs classified as "federal public benefits" under PRWORA. These include health clinics, mental health services block grants, homelessness transition block grants, substance abuse treatment, and other programs.
Critics condemned the HHS move.
"Head Start programs strive to make every child feel welcome, safe, and supported, and reject the characterization of any child as 'illegal,'" said Yasmina Vinci, executive director of the advocacy group National Head Start Association.
"The Head Start Act has never required documentation of immigration status as a condition for enrollment over the last 60 years," Vinci added. "Attempts to impose such a requirement threaten to create fear and confusion among all families who are focused on raising healthy children, ready to succeed in school and life."
The HHS policy change is part of the Trump administration's wider anti-immigrant agenda. The president has launched a mass deportation drive, opened the "Alligator Alcatraz" concentration camp in the Florida Everglades, stripped temporary protected status from numerous nationalities, pushed to end birthright citizenship, and arrested and jailed green-card holders for peacefully protesting genocide—among other xenophobic and racist policies and practices.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressives, Democrats Vow Fight as Senate GOP Aims to Claw Back Billions in Federal Funding
Republicans plan to utilize a rare process called "rescission" to skirt Congress' power of the purse and illegally allow Trump to withhold hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funding to critical programs.
Jul 10, 2025
The U.S. Senate will soon vote on whether President Donald Trump can claw back billions of dollars that have already been appropriated by Congress.
Last month, the House narrowly voted to allow Trump to rescind $9.4 billion in funds that were meant to fund global health initiatives—including AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis prevention—and public broadcasters like PBS and NPR.
It's far from the first time that this Republican-controlled Congress has voted on massive budget cuts, but progressive groups and some Democratic lawmakers say this vote has another frightening dimension to it.
These funds were among the more than $420 billion appropriated by Congress that Trump illegally impounded, or refused to spend, at the start of his term.
In a letter sent Wednesday to members of Congress, a coalition of more than 100 groups—including Public Citizen, the AFL-CIO, and Greenpeace—warned that by voting to approve these rescissions of federal funds, they would be giving Trump tacit approval to unconstitutionally take away Congress' authority to spend money.
"This rescissions proposal does not ask Congress, as required by the Impoundment Control Act, to approve the entirety of the federal spending that has been illegally frozen by the Trump administration," the letter notes. "The administration is merely trying to establish a veil of legitimacy while it continues unconstitutional actions that it began more than 100 days ago."
The groups went on to warn that allowing the president to unilaterally cut funding that he doesn't approve of "risks irreparable damage to the regular bipartisan appropriations process."
"Despite the political back-and-forth, Congress eventually reaches a bipartisan agreement on government funding every year, one way or another," they said. "The basis for that bipartisan agreement is that both parties must agree to compromises to achieve any of their goals. If a party with a political trifecta can simply rescind funding for the parts of appropriations bills they compromised on, they undermine congressional checks and balances and the basis for future bipartisan dealmaking on an already politically fraught process."
Under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, presidents are forbidden from unilaterally refusing to spend funds. However, Congress is allowed to pass a "rescission" bill within 45 days of canceling them if the president requests it.
Trump would be the first president since Bill Clinton in 1999 to successfully have funds rescinded by Congress, and it would be the largest rescission in four decades.
But as the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities points out, there is a key difference: "The administration illegally impounded the funds at issue for months before proposing the [rescission] package" and that it is "unlawfully withholding much larger amounts of funding that it has not proposed for rescission."
According to a tracker created by the office of Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who sit on the House and Senate appropriations committees, respectively, the Trump administration is blocking congressionally appropriated funds for programs including:
- Research into Alzheimer's disease, women's health, cancer, diabetes, and other illnesses;
- Natural disaster relief;
- School lunch assistance for children;
- Early childhood education through the Head Start Program; and
- Birth control and cancer screenings for over 800,000 patients
Russell Vought, the head of the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has openly indicated a desire to use rescission to cut all of this spending "without having to get an affirmative vote" from Congress.
According to The New York Times, Vought is planning to use an even more arcane and illegal maneuver known as "pocket rescission" to avoid spending the funds. As Tony Romm reported in June:
Under the emerging plan, the Trump administration would wait until closer to Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, to formally ask lawmakers to claw back a set of funds it has targeted for cuts. Even if Congress fails to vote on the request, the president’s timing would trigger a law that freezes the money until it ultimately expires.
Some Senate Democrats have indicated they'd be willing to risk a government shutdown to prevent the rescission bill from passing.
In a letter published Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wrote that the prospect of the rescissions bill passing had "grave implications."
"[I]t is absurd for [Republicans] to expect Democrats to act as business as usual and engage in a bipartisan appropriations process to fund the government, while they concurrently plot to pass a purely partisan rescissions bill to defund those same programs negotiated on a bipartisan basis behind the scenes," Schumer wrote.
Murray called out Vought directly on Wednesday at a markup session on the next round of bills in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
"For us to be able to work in a bipartisan way effectively, that requires us to work with each other. To not just write bipartisan funding bills—but to defend them from partisan cuts sought by the president and the OMB director," she said during her opening remarks. "We cannot allow bipartisan funding bills with partisan rescission packages. It will not work."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Brazilians Rally Around Lula After Trump Tariff Threat
"True Brazlians... do not let yourselves be the dogs of an American president who shames the ideas of democracy," wrote the editors of a major Brazilian newspaper.
Jul 10, 2025
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva may have gotten a political boost thanks to the intervention of U.S. President Donald Trump.
On Wednesday, Trump announced he was slapping all Brazilian imports with a 50% tariff to protest the criminal trial of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a longtime Trump ally who was indicted on charges related to an alleged coup plot to illegally remain in power after he lost the 2022 general election.
However, it does not appear that Trump's intervention into Brazil's domestic politics is helping Bolsonaro in the court of public opinion and Brazilian publication Globo reports that Brazilians have been swarming the U.S. president's Instagram account and leaving messages telling him to "leave Brazil in peace" while insisting their country is "not a lawless land."
In an analysis piece published by the São Paulo-based Folha, journalist Igor Gielow declared that Bolsonaro was an "immediate loser" of Trump's decision, as in the past he has declared Trump to be his political idol and the two are generally seen as joined at the hip. What's more, Gielow argues that the Trump tariffs are most likely to hurt Brazil's agribusiness sector, which is where the core of Bolsonaro's political support lies.
Lorrena Rodrigues, a columnist at the more conservative newspaper Estadão, argued that Trump had given a "gift" to Lula by giving his party the opportunity to focus public attention away from domestic problems and "to exploit a patriotism that used to be the monopoly" of the country's right-wing opposition party.
Rodrigues also said that Trump's tariffs against Brazil had no economic justification given that the United States runs a trade surplus with the country, which makes it seem as though Trump "wants to interfere in the internal politics and the justice system of Brazil through international commerce," which is not something likely to be popular in the country.
A leading editorial published in Estadão delivered even harsher criticism of the American president, whom it likened to a member of the mafia.
"Trump is using the threat of import tariffs on Brazil to obligate the country to surrender to his absurd demands," wrote the editors, who further said that Trump "lied shamelessly in his letter to justify the drastic measure" he imposed on Brazil. The editorial concluded by imploring "true Brazilians" to "not let yourselves be the dogs of an American president who shames the ideas of democracy."
Globo also reports that members of the conservative opposition party held an emergency meeting to discuss how to respond politically to Trump's tariffs. One unnamed Senate leader who spoke with the publication described Trump's surprise announcement as "a shot in the foot."
"Who's going to be in favor of this?" the Senate leader wondered. "Who's going to go against their own country?"
Brazilians have for decades been suspicious of the United States' intentions toward their national sovereignty since the U.S. backed a military coup in 1964 that ousted its democratically elected left-wing government and replaced it with a dictatorship that lasted for more than two decades.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular