|
|
White v. Lee victory
affirms free speech
In 1993 Berkeley residents Joseph Deringer, his wife, Alexandra White, and neighbor Richard Graham learned of plans to convert the town's Bel Air Hotel into a shelter for homeless people, including alcohol and drug abusers. The shelter abutted their property and was also near several liquor stores. The news prompted them to write a letter to the developer and set about making leaflets, speaking at town meetings, and generally protesting the construction. Unknowingly, however, they had stepped on a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) bylaw, based on the Fair Housing Act, that barred anyone from discriminating against giving people housing for reasons of race or disability. The company running the Bel Air conversion filed a complaint with HUD alleging that White and the others were impairing their ability to ensure equal housing. The "Berkeley Three" first received a HUD notice that warned them of an impending $50,000 fine. Months of harassment from HUD followed, until the Three were forced to sue in San Francisco federal court to affirm their right to protest government actions. The Nine Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring that no reasonable person would have thought the investigation lawful.The decision avowed that what the Three had been involved in was the "essence of First Amendment expression." LaVera Gillespie, the director of the area's branch of HUD during the investigation, was found personally liable for her breaches of the Berkeley Three's rights, sending a warning to overzealous government officials everywhere.
Popular press praises CIR's victory for free speech
View the 9th Circuit Opinion (Sept. 27, 2000) (PDF 24K)
Additional articles and legal documents
Affordable Housing
Development Corp.
Using well-intentioned but poorly implemented anti-discrimination laws, even private parties can use the courts to block protected speech. Such was the case when AHDC, a low-income housing developer, sued California resident Travis Compton for discrimination. Compton's "crime" was voting against and otherwise opposing a housing development while a member of a Fresno city advisory committee. Fortunately, with some help from CIR, Compton was able to demonstrate to the courts that these discrimination claims were utterly without merit. A federal court granted summary judgement in favor of Compton on all counts.
Read the CIR press release (September 5, 2000)
Selected articles
Jeremy Rabkin. "Developers
nail free speech." American Spectator, December 2000,
p. 46.
 Last
revised:
23-Jul-2013
  
|
|
