Federal Court Finds Patriot Act Gag On Connecticut Library Is Unconstitutional
-- Library Journal, 09/13/2005
A federal judge has ruled unconstitutional a Patriot Act gag order preventing an unnamed Connecticut librarian from speaking out on the receipt of a National Security Letter (NSL) demanding patron library records. In a further twist, however, the court immediately stayed its ruling until September 20 to give the government time to prepare an appeal. On August 31, government attorneys argued that the FBI, which served the NSL, needed the gag to preserve an ongoing investigation and that the recipient of the letter was still free to speak on the Patriot Act--just not to divulge its identity. U.S. District Court Judge Janet Hall, however, rejected that argument, and found that the provision, which gags those who receive an NSL, as overly broad. “The government may intend the non-disclosure provision to serve some purpose other than the suppression of speech,” Hall wrote. “Nevertheless, it has the practical effect of silencing individuals with a constitutionally protected interest in speech and whose voices are particularly important in an ongoing national debate about the intrusion of governmental authority into individual lives.”
The lawsuit, Doe vs. Gonzales, filed on August 9, does not involve the most controversial provision--Section 215 of the Patriot Act--which relaxes standards for searches of business records, including library records--but challenges the National Security Letter (NSL) provision, Section 505, of the Patriot Act. That provision authorizes the FBI to demand a range of personal records without court approval, such as the identity of a person who has visited web sites on a library computer, or who has engaged in “anonymous speech” on the Internet. Further, it prohibits those who receive an NSL from discussing it. Ann Beeson, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Associate Legal Director and the lead attorney in the case, said the ruling “makes clear that the government cannot silence innocent Americans simply by invoking national security.” In her 29 page ruling, Hall recalled former Attorney General John Ashcroft’s 2003 assertion that librarians were “hysterical,” and that the government did not wish to peruse library records. “The potential for abuse is written into the statute,” Hall noted in her decision. “The very people who might have information regarding investigative abuses and overreaching are preemptively prevented from sharing that information with the public and with the legislators who empower the executive branch with the tools used to investigate matters of national security.” Meanwhile, separate House and Senate bills reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT are expected to be resolved in conference in this month, with ALA encouraging Congressional conferees to vote for the Senate version of the bill, which includes improved reader privacy protections not included in the House version (see LJ Academic Newswire 8/2/05). Read Hall’s decision.
