A set of bronze boobs has sent a group of citizens in Kansas into a tizzy. Offended by a statue depicting a woman's breasts, they are now stepping up their fight against a statue in the Overland Park Arboretum, just south of Kansas City.
"Accept or Reject" (pictured above) is a bronze sculpture donated to the arboretum by sculptor Yu Chang, depicting a fractured, topless woman taking a photograph of her exposed (bronze) breasts. In 2012, a group of Kansans, organized by the American Family Association (AFA), circulated a petition to convene a grand jury for the purpose of deciding whether the popular statue was illegally "obscene." They got the necessary signatures, and a grand jury of Kansas citizens gathered to… criminally investigate the statue. Fortunately, the grand jury looked at the statue, looked at state obscenity law, and determined that the "sculpture in question did not meet the legal definition of obscenity." While the sculpture avoided a criminal record, the taxpayers didn't avoid a hefty bill for this misguided attempt to criminalize art. According to city officials, they spent over $35,000 to defend the statue in her bare-breasted glory. Undeterred, the AFA is now leading a second attempt to bring the sculpture to criminal court.
How is this even possible? First, a bit of background.
Kansas is among a small handful of states that have a citizen-empanelled grand jury law on the books. Under this process, a group can start a petition drive to seek a particular criminal indictment. If they reach the required number of signatures — around 4,000 in Johnson County, Kansas — a grand jury is empanelled to investigate violations of Kansas law. But until this year, the citizens' influence over the process stopped there.
That changed in 2013. Angry after a string of grand juries failed to return indictments alleging illegal abortion and pornography, groups like Kansans for Life advocated for a bill expanding citizen involvement in the grand jury process. The bill passed and is now law. Now the law requires the grand jury to call the petition organizer as its first witness, and permits the jury to pay for a special counsel or investigator of its choosing — even to replace the government prosecutor. Empowered by the expanded role of citizens in the grand jury process, the AFA is taking a second swing at the bronze breasts in the arboretum, and has started a second signature drive.
In the overwhelming majority of states, it is the government prosecutor, bound by both legal ethics and an oath to the U.S. Constitution, who acts as gatekeeper to our criminal justice system. It is critical that the indictment process is governed by considerable legal judgment and sensitivity to constitutional rights. In fact, you might call those protections the beating heart of our apolitical justice system. The AFA's repeat attempts to morph art into obscenity perfectly illustrate the constitutional risk in turning the criminal justice system over to private citizens.
Running afoul of the First Amendment
The First Amendment, and the opinions of the Supreme Court, hold this kind of art to be protected expression, not criminal obscenity. Under the law, "obscenity" has a specific meaning: it's something that appeals to a "prurient" interest (that is, it's sexually exciting) and is devoid of any cultural, literary, or artistic merit. That's a tough bar for any sculpture to meet, since regardless of whether any one individual values or likes a particular piece of art, it's incredibly difficult to prove that a piece of art is devoid of artistic value as a whole. And repeatedly bringing a piece of art into the criminal justice system is not only unconstitutional, it risks chilling future artistic work. If the people of Florence had threatened to haul Michelangelo's David before a people's tribunal, he might never have gone on to paint all those nudes in the Sistine Chapel.
So, let's say AFA were to succeed in its second go-round, and convince a grand jury that the statue qualifies as evidence of a crime. What would city officials have do? First, they'd have to figure out whom to indict. The AFA's first petition didn't specify whom — or, perhaps, what — would be indicted. Just that the "alleged violation" was the "sculpture" itself. And if city officials did act on an indictment — perhaps against the sculpture, the artist, the arboretum, or the city itself — the $35,000 it cost the city to defend the statue would be just the beginning for the taxpayers of Johnson County, who would then be vulnerable to constitutional arguments that any indictment ran afoul of the First Amendment. (Psst: if any Kansas judges are reading this, the ACLU would be delighted to be appointed to represent the statue in court.) So, the grand jury proceeding can only lead to one of two outcomes: An empty symbolic gesture, or an expensive and unconstitutional criminal prosecution.
It's not news that boobs can set off controversy. After all, our own former Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered expensive curtains that hid the bare breast of the sculpture "Spirit of Justice." A federal court recently ruled that students have the right to wear "I (heart) Boobies" bracelets to school in support of breast cancer awareness, after school officials objected. Even the U.S. mint issued the short-lived "bare-breasted Standing Liberty Quarter," rescinded after public outcry.
In this grand American tradition of getting upset about breasts, the AFA and its supporters are in good company. They have every constitutional right to advocate against a topless statue, to collect petition signatures to plead their case with the city and ask for it to be moved or taken down, and to rally its members behind a campaign to install better-clothed public art. But our constitutional democracy does not allow a group of citizens to use the criminal justice system as a tool to censor constitutionally-protected expression. The same amendment — our first! — in all its wisdom protects both the statue's right to bare its breasts and the citizens' right to object to them. Just not to warp the criminal justice system to achieve an unconstitutional outcome.
Learn more about free speech and other civil liberties issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.