jail, and there was not much heard from them until I think it was the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court on desegregation of schools and this started up again. The area of Ohio and Kentucky that this particular group seems to operate, that I had my problem with, is real close by and they thought they would extend, so to speak, in Indiana. We were able to stop them.

As I say, we are in the Federal court now on whether we are right or not, and we think we are because of Zimmerman.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we certainly appreciate your attendance. Mr. ZERBE. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We will give deep consideration to your suggestion. Mr. ZERBE. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now our next witness is Mr. Lawrence Speiser, director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Mr. Speiser, we are glad to have you, sir.

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE SPEISER, DIRECTOR FOR THE WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

Mr. SPEISER. I am Lawrence Speiser, the director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union, a private nonpartisan, nonprofit organization which devotes its entire resources to the protection of the Bill of Rights.

We know that freedom cannot flourish in a society where crime and racism are unchecked. However, we are equally convinced that the Government in its efforts to rout these evils, should not use selfdefeating methods which undercut constitutional rights in order to achieve a desired goal. Shortcuts taken around constitutional freedoms protected by the due process clause and other provisions of the Bill of Rights would weaken, rather than strengthen, the democratic structure which we seek to build and maintain.

PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

H.R. 15678 would add a Title IV to the Internal Security Act of 1950, to be known as the "Organizational Conspiracies Act of 1966.” This bill is the result of the hearings this committee held into the Ku Klux Klan and proposes to make it a crime:

1. For any member of defined "clandestine organizations” to travel in interstate commerce or use the mails with the intent to commit or promote, manage or facilitate any crime of violence. (Sec. 404)

2. For any member or agent of such organizations to harm, kill, or obstruct or impede any person who is moving in interstate commerce. (Secs. 405, 406)

3. To teach or advocate the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety, by the use of violence, force, intimidation or any unlawful means, the furthering of any of the purposes of any "clandestine organization" or the depriving of U.S. citizens of any constitutional or legal right. (Sec. 407)

4. To use a radio or telephone by a member of any "clandestine organization" with the intent to aid any person in the commission of, or concealment of, any offense against the United States or to prevent detection or arrest for any offense. (Sec. 408)

5. To give or take an oath or pledge by a member of a "clandestine organization" to conceal knowledge of any offense against the United States, past, present or future. (Sec. 409)

Lastly, it authorizes the Attorney General to seek an injunction against any "criminal conspiracy" when he has reasonable grounds to believe a member is engaging in or is about to engage in any unlawful act or any act of violence, intimidation, or harassment, that injures, oppresses, or punishes any citizen in the free exercise of a constitutional or lawful right.

The bill defines a "clandestine organization" as any organization which (a) conceals its name, activities, or membership, or (b) whose members are required to keep their membership secret, or (c) whose members take an oath of secrecy, and (d) whose meetings are secret or guarded against intrusion by persons not associated with the organization. (Sec. 403 (4))

The bill defines "criminal conspiracy" as any organization (a) which advocates, teaches, or employs, or (b) which within the 3 years prior to the filing of an action or proceeding for injunctive relief has engaged in, or (c) whose leaders, officers or members, in furtherance of a plan of the organization, have participated in or aided, or (d) have applied resources in aid of the commission of acts of violence, intimidation or harassment, to coerce any citizen "to do or not do any act or thing or to engage in or refrain from engaging in any course of conduct to conform with any purpose, objective or plan of such organization." (Sec. 403 (5))

We believe the "clandestine organization" sections violate due process in being vague and indefinite and infringe on freedom of association.

The definitions of those who come under the bill and the acts prohibited are so broad and all encompassing, that pefectly legitimate organizations and actions would be made unlawful under this bill. The CHAIRMAN. What for instance?

Mr. SPEISER. I have specified them in here and if I may continue with my statement I will get to them, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. SPEISER. Statutes which are so vague and indefinite are unconstitutional because, "No one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes [A] statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law." Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451 (1938) at 453.

The criteria for being an illegal "clandestine organization" are a concealed membership list, or the urging or instruction of members to conceal their membership or the taking of an oath to maintain secrecy and the holding of meetings guarded against intrusion by outsiders. (Sec. 403 (4))

It should be noted that these factors are alternatives with the exception of the last, so that any one factor plus the holding of meetings which bars outsiders is sufficient.

The term "organization" is defined as any group or combination of persons "associated for joint action on any subject or subjects" and includes two persons "acting in concert to perform any act."

Under these definitions, the following organizations would be considered "clandestine":

1. Democratic Study Group of House of Representatives

2. College fraternities and sororities.

3. Masons

4. John Birch Society

5. Labor unions

6. NAACP. (See NAACP. v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) in which the Supreme Court held the NAACP had a right to conceal its membership lists in Alabama; Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 (1960) similarly in Little Rock, Arkansas, and Louisiana v. NAACP, 366 U.S. 243 (1961), similarly in Louisiana.) 7. Knights of Pythias

8. C.I.A.

9. Office of Naval Intelligence

10. National Defense Agency.

This table of horrors is not farfetched because there is absolutely no requirement of illegal purposes for an organization to be encompassed within the definitions.

Section 405 covering certain acts of violence by members of such organizations merely requires that they be "acting in furtherance of or in relation to any purpose, objective or plan of such organization.” That hardly is a requirement of specific intent or even general intent.

Therefore, this bill would, for example, make it a Federal crime subject to a 5-year prison sentence and/or $5000 fine for any member of those organizations I have listed to assault any person moving in interstate commerce. (Sec. 405 (d))

Section 406, it is clear, could be used against labor unions. It provides that any member of a clandestine organization "acting in furtherance of or in relation to any purpose, objective or plan of such organization wilfully by force, intimidation or threat unlawfully obstructs or impedes the free movement of any citizen in interstate commerce." Strikes do often impede the movements of people in interstate commerce.

"Intimidations" or "threats" in this bill are nowhere limited to physical intimidation or threats of force or violence. Being unlimited, they could encompass economic boycotts, including even those by groups which threaten store owners with economic ruin if they persist in selling goods made in Communist countries.

In short, this bill penalizes individuals because they are members of so-called "clandestine organizations" with heavier penalties than they would bear if they did not belong. Such a law infringes on freedom of association protected by the first amendment, since, under such a blackjack, many people will be afraid to join any organization. (See Fellman, The Constitutional Right of Association, 1963.)

THE PUNISHMENT OF TEACHING AND ADVOCACY IN THIS BILL VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Section 407 makes it a crime, subject to 10 years and/or $10,000 fine, for any person to teach, advise, or advocate the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety by the use of violence, force, intimidation or any unlawful means, of (1) furthering any objective or plan of any clan

66-815-66

destine organization in interstate commerce or (2) preventing or hindering any citizen of the United States from freely exercising or enjoying any right, liberty, privilege or immunity granted by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

I should point out in what ways this section is not limited:

(a) It is not limited to advocacy of force, but includes mere advocacy of intimidation and nonviolent unlawful means.

(b) It is not limited to incitement of immediate action but encompasses mere discussion of abstract doctrine-a form of advocacy—and, therefore, runs afoul of the line the Supreme Court has drawn between protected and unprotected speech. Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957).

The CHAIRMAN. Did you hear the colloquy that we do not intend to reach, and this bill does not reach, such things as the advocacy of hate, as reprehensible as that may be?

Mr. SPEISER. I heard part of the colloquy, Mr. Chairman, and even though that may be the intent of the chairman, unless that is spelled out, it seems to me that this bill could be applied in that fashion. The CHAIRMAN. Have you completed your statement?

Mr. SPEISER. No.

(c) It is not limited to members of clandestine organizations, which presumably was the purpose of this bill.

(d) It is not limited to furthering only illegal plans of "clandestine organizations," but encompasses legal plans or objectives.

The following persons would be encompassed within the provisions of section 407 on the teaching of advocacy:

1. Any police officer or law enforcement official who advocates or teaches the propriety or desirability of interrograting any individual without informing him of his constitutional rights.

2. Any real estate broker who advocates the propriety or desirability of refusing to show an apartment to a Negro in violating of the proposed fair housing title of the Administration civil rights bill.

3. Any business owner who advocates or teaches the propriety or desirability of not hiring or promoting employees without regard to race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964-the Federal equal employment opportunities act.

4. It would encompass any Congressman who advocates the propriety or desirability of religious prayers in public schools.

5. It would encompass any Congressman, school official or any citizen who advocates the propriety or desirability of maintaining segregated public school systems anywhere in the United States.

We believe the Injunctive Relief section violates the due process clause and the first amendment.

Section 412 provides that the Attorney General may apply for an injunction against any "criminal conspiracy" whenever he has reasonable grounds to believe that it is engaging in or is about to engage in (1) any act which is unlawful under the laws of the United States, or (2) the commission of any act of violence, intimidation, or harassment that injures, oppresses, or punishes any citizen in the free exercise of any constitutional or legal right, liberty, privilege, or immunity. A "criminal conspiracy" is defined in section 403 (5) as any organization (a) which advocates, teaches, or employs or (b) which within 3 years of any proceeding against it has engaged in, or (c) whose lead

ers have participated in, aided or encouraged, or (d) any part of its resources have been used in aid of or toward acts of violence, intimidation, or harassment for the purpose of coercing any citizen "to do or not do any act or thing, or to engage in or refrain from engaging in any course of conduct, to conform with any purpose, objective, or plan of such organization."

Here again it should be noted in what ways the definition of "criminal conspiracy" is not limited:

(a) It is not limited to "clandestine organizations."

(b) It is not limited to organizations which advocate or teach or commit acts of violence; it includes organizations which advocate acts of nonviolent intimidation or harassment such as strikes or economic boycotts, or sit-ins.

(c) It is not limited to organizations which take any kind of action but encompasses those which only advocate harassment or intimidation. Therefore, the same free speech problem arises as the one involving section 407.

The following organizations and individuals would be subject to injunctive proceedings by the Attorney General:

1. Labor unions which call any strike, since any strike is bound to "oppress" an employer in the use of his property and business.

2. Civil rights organizations which conduct sit-ins in places of public accommodation where they have been refused service.

3. Real estate brokers who harass home owners to sell their homes on the grounds that a member of a minority race has moved into ant area and allegedly has depressed property values.

Injunctions against criminal acts punishable by criminal contempt are fraught with danger. They eliminate grand jury indictments, preliminary hearings, trial by jury, presumption of innocence and the burden of proof on the Government that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is true the bill does provide for jury trials in the criminal contempt cases, in other than petty offenses, (Sec. 414 (a)), but that is no more than is now required by the Supreme Court, Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373 (1966).

The bill also contains an immunity provision (Sec. 413). The ACLU considers any immunity law as unwise and unconstitutional because we believe that the privilege against self-incrimination should also include protection against self-degradation. While the courts today might not accept this view, we believe that the past rulings of judges of various courts should still apply, that people should be protected against giving self-degrading testimony.

Our democratic system is based on the concept of fairness and decent treatment of the individual, and the full power of Government should not be brought to bear to force a person to condemn himself by his own words. The fifth amendment protection against selfincrimination is rooted in the historical struggle of men to maintain their political beliefs despite Government efforts to force confessions which would result in criminal prosecutions.

USE OF TELEPHONE TO COMMIT OR CANCEL ANY OFFENSE

Section 408 bars the use of radio, wireless, or telephone by a member of a "clandestine organization" to commit or conceal any offense against