BOSTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts today sent a letter to Mayor Thomas M. Menino and Boston Police Commissioner Kathleen O’Toole urging them to abandon the announced plan to send city officials into shops to seize or “strongly discourage” the sale of T-shirts emblazoned with the message: “Stop Snitchin’.”

“It is unfortunate that so much attention has focused on this part of the Mayor’s anti-crime initiative,” said Carol Rose, Executive Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts.  “We share concerns about the need to stem violence and witness intimidation, but this proposal is the wrong way to address those concerns.”

The ACLU said that the message on the T-shirts is a constitutionally protected form of expression, and that the sale and purchase of the shirts is not illegal. “It may be irresponsible, callous or anti-social, but it is still a message and as such is protected by the First Amendment,” wrote the ACLU in its letter. 

“To have uniformed Boston police officers visit retail stores to ‘strongly recommend’ that merchants should not sell these T-shirts is a form of official censorship which is fundamentally inconsistent with the constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression,” said John Reinstein, Legal Director for the ACLU of Massachusetts. 

The ACLU said the police should focus on true threats against a witness, but the sale of a T-shirt does not constitute such a threat, nor does the simple act of wearing such a shirt.

In any event, taking the T-shirts out of local stores will not take them off the streets, said the ACLU, since the T-shirts are readily available over the Internet.

“We strongly urge city officials to reconsider this announced plan to prevent the sale of these T-shirts,” concluded the ACLU letter.  “It is understandable that you disapprove of the message they convey, but the First Amendment does not permit you to suppress that message.  Beyond that, limiting the availability of these shirts does not deal with the issue of witness intimidation, and it distracts attention from the substantive element of the measures announced yesterday.”

A copy of the ACLU letter is below: 

December 2, 2005

Hand Delivered 

Mayor Thomas M. Menino    
Mayor’s Office     
1 City Hall Plaza     
Boston, MA 02201     

Commissioner Kathleen M. O’Toole 
Boston Police Department
One Schroeder Plaza
Boston, MA 02120-2014

Dear Mayor Menino and Commissioner O’Toole:

It is unfortunate that so much attention has focused on that part of your anti-crime initiative dealing with the “Stop Snitchin” t-shirts.  It is unfortunate but unavoidable.  The announced plan to have uniformed Boston police officers visit retail stores to strongly recommend that they should not sell these t-shirts is a form of official censorship which is fundamentally inconsistent with the constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression.

Two points should be made at the outset.  First, it is clear that the t-shirts convey a message.  It may be irresponsible, callous or anti-social, but it is still a message and as such is protected by the First Amendment.  Indeed, it is precisely because it conveys a message that it appears to be of such great concern to the city.  Second, the sale and wearing of these shirts is not illegal.
 
Over forty years ago, in Bantam Books , Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963), the United States Supreme Court held that this type of official pressure to eliminate objectionable material violates the First Amendment.  In that case, a state created commission had circulated to bookstores a list of publications which it considered objectionable.  The notice sent by the commission solicited or thanked the booksellers in advance for their “cooperation” and reminded them that obscenity could be prosecuted.  The result was that the objectionable books were no longer offered for sale.  In the Supreme Court, the commission argued that it did not regulate or suppress the books, but simply exhorted booksellers not to offer them for sale.  The Court disagreed.  Although the commission had no formal power, it “deliberately set out to achieve the suppression of publications deemed ‘objectionable’ and succeeded in its aim.  We are not the first court to look through forms to the substance and recognize that informal censorship may sufficiently inhibit the circulation of publications to warrant injunctive relief.”  Id. at 67.

This is not to say that the police are helpless to respond to true threats against a witness, but the sale of a t-shirt does not constitute such a threat, nor does the simple act of wearing such a shirt.

We strongly urge you to reconsider your announced plan to prevent the sale of these t-shirts.  It is understandable that you disapprove of the message they convey, but First Amendment does not permit you to suppress that message.  Beyond that, limiting the availability of these shirts does not deal with the issue of witness intimidation, and it distracts attention from the substantive element of the measures announced yesterday.

We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you or your legal representatives

Sincerely yours,

Carol Rose        
Executive Director      

John Reinstein
Legal Director