Campaigning for LWOP

Chapter 2 explores the broader political sphere and focuses on the strategies developed by two of the most vocal organizations involved in the Savings Accountability and Full Enforcement (SAFE) Campaign of 2012 in California (hereinafter SAFE Campaign): The ‘American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California’ (ACLU-NC) and ‘Death Penalty Focus’ (DPF). This chapter of the book combines an analysis of pamphlets, flyers, and public discourses, with a narrative informed by interviews with some of the Campaign’s most vocal activists. The politics of abolition in the public sphere are characterized by a progressive instrumentalization of LWOP’s severity that is shaped by penal populist paradigm shifts and heightened fiscal concerns.

Man! and the International Group

From January 1933 through April 1940, Man! A Journal of the Anarchist Ideal and Movement served as the central connector for a transnational anarchist network that extended across multiple continents from North America to Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. As the main organ of the “International Group”—an organization with chapters throughout the United States—Man! also linked radical immigrant communities throughout America. In addition to demonstrating the importance of print publications as an avenue for transatlantic and inter-ethnic connection, the story of Man! provides a lesser-known, early example of an international solidarity movement and critical window into political repression. With help from the American Civil Liberties Union, the several-year governmental effort to suppress the journal and deport its editors Vincent Ferrero and Domenic Sallitto as well as their colleague, Marcus Graham, became an international cause célèbre that sparked an international defense movement. Recounting the history of Man! and the International Group helps to bring this moment in transnational anarchist resistance to light, while elucidating the ways in which xenophobia-driven immigration policy can serve as a means for State-based suppression of political dissent.

Legitimation and Textual Evidence: How the Snowden Leaks Reshaped the ACLU’s Online Writing About NSA Surveillance

Scholars in discourse studies have defined legitimation as the justification (and critique) of powerful institutions and their practices. In moments of crisis, legitimation tactics often shift. This article considers how such shifts are incited by unauthorized information leaks. Leaks, I argue, constitute freshly available texts that reveal privileged institutional information presented in a specialized rhetorical style. To explore how leaks are harnessed by institutional critics, I examine the 2013 Snowden/National Security Agency (NSA) crisis. Combining corpus analysis with discourse analysis, I explore how Snowden’s NSA leaks affected the online writing of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). I also consider overlaps between the rhetorical patterns in the leaked NSA documents and those in the ACLU’s post-leaks writing. Findings from my analysis of legitimation and style categories suggest that, prior to the leaks, ACLU writers primarily used a character- and narrative-based style to delegitimize the NSA’s policies as illegal and secretive, and to push for their reform. After the leaks, though, the ACLU mainly used an informationally dense style rife with academic terms and vocabularies of strategic action, portraying NSA surveillance as massive and complex. As the documents moved from the NSA’s secret, technical discourses to public, critical discourses, the latter came to resemble the former rhetorically. These findings raise crucial questions about how critics can make use of leaks without necessarily relegitimizing institutional power.

NCOG-42. INITIAL PRESENTATION AND OUTPATIENT VISIT COMPLIANCE OF INMATES WITH BRAIN TUMORS

INTRODUCTION While advocacy for inmates with cancer has recently gained momentum, little is known about management of brain tumors in inmates. Delays in acknowledging or recognizing nonspecific initial symptoms can lead to delayed diagnosis and treatment. Inmates with cancer are reported to either be ignored or receive substandard care due in part to cost or logistics (American Civil Liberties Union; ASCO Post 2018). METHODS In this retrospective study, we identified inmates with gliomas seen in the Ohio State University Neuro-oncology Center between 1/1/2010-4/20/2019. RESULTS Twelve patients were identified. Median age at presentation was 39.5 years (range 28-62). Eleven patients were Caucasian and one was African American. Diagnoses included glioblastoma (GBM) (n=6), anaplastic astrocytoma (n=1), anaplastic oligodendroglioma (n=1), low-grade astrocytoma (n=3) and anaplastic pleomorphic xanthroastrocytoma (n=1). Patients were more likely to present early after seizures or focal neurologic deficits (9/12) than after headaches alone. Patients with GBM started RT 12-71 days after surgery (median 34.5). One patient’s post-RT MRI was delayed by a month and another with GBM had treatment held after 4 cycles of adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) due to “incarceration issues”. For one patient who received adjuvant TMZ, the facility failed to communicate with the primary team throughout treatment. Two patients suffered significant nausea while on chemotherapy due to inability to obtain ondansetron in prison, or due to wrong timing. 7/12 (58%) patients were lost to follow-up for periods of 3-15 months during treatment. Three patients refused adjuvant treatment. CONCLUSIONS Although this is a small series, our results highlight the inequities and challenges faced by inmates with gliomas who are more likely to forego treatments or whose incarceration prevents them from keeping appropriate treatment and follow-up schedules. Additional studies are needed to define and address these deficiencies in the care of inmates with brain tumors and other cancers.

Free Speech

In this article, Alisha Kirchoff and Fabio Rojas interview Nadeen Strossen, former President of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Epilogue

This epilogue shows that Hague v. CIO had a legacy more complex than its reputation as a speech rights victory for workers and others over dictatorial city boss Frank Hague under the Bill of Rights. The American Civil Liberties Union and renamed Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) immediately split over the decision’s ramifications. Moreover, while the ruling enlarged constitutional protection for the right of public assembly to the benefit of Jehovah’s Witnesses, civil rights demonstrators, and others, it did little to enhance picketing and other “labor speech,” or to shield union organizers from police harassment. And while the decision freed the CIO to organize in Jersey City, it did not destroy Mayor Hague, who accommodated CIO unions and was ousted later due to city politics.

Into Federal District Court

This chapter recounts the federal district court injunction proceeding instituted by the Committee for Industrial Organization (CIO) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to stop Jersey City from denying leafletting rights and public-speaking permits. Revealing the hearing’s nastiness, the chapter shows that the trial had legal significance beyond exposing Mayor Hague’s misdeeds, as it tested whether Jersey City’s claim of traditional municipal police powers against alleged CIO communists or the ACLU’s new vision of nationally protected speech and assembly rights for workers would prevail, and indeed, whether federal courts would accept jurisdiction. With law in flux, the chapter concludes, the district court broke new ground by assuming jurisdiction, rejecting Jersey City’s old legal vision, embracing new ACLU views, and enjoining Jersey City as requested.