The legislative session is far from over, and if history tells us anything it’s that our greatest civil liberties battles have yet to make themselves known. In our latest newsletter to members, we discussed the many bills that threaten your liberties in 2015 and beyond. (We also discuss elementary schools' violations of Title IX, our FOIA suit against the DEA, and our concerns about East Providence's hiring practices and Pawtucket Police Department's traffic stop practices, and our upcoming events.)

These bills range from restrictions on abortion access and limits on free speech to attempts to undermine the state's medical marijuana program and "ban the box" law. And, as our executive director notes, a package of “computer crimes” bills from the Attorney General’s Office shows "the dangers of over-criminalization gone awry."

Here's a small sample of some of the bills that threaten civil liberties this year. If you want to help us stop these attempts to limit your rights, contact your Senator or Representative today. 

Parole for Murder (H 5158, S 0132)
Despite lacking any evidence that increased sentences decrease recidivism, legislation requiring those convicted of murder to serve significantly more of their sentence before becoming eligible for parole has passed the Senate. Such legislation ties the hands of judges and reduces incentives for prisoners to engage in rehabilitative services, while locking them up for longer periods at a cost of more than $40,000 per year.

Cyberstalking/Cyberharassment (H 5467, S 0565)
Under current law, an individual commits cyberstalking and cyberharassment when they engage in a series of acts online specifically intended to harass an individual or their family. Under legislation proposed by the Attorney General’s office, one single act online that is then used by others to harass a person would be criminal, regardless of whether the individual intended, or was even aware of, the harassment that subsequently took place. As such, the legislation raises serious First Amendment concerns and would have a very chilling effect on any communication via the Internet.

Unauthorized Computer Access (H 5458, S 0567)
Another troubling piece of legislation from the Attorney General’s office aimed at computer crimes is a broadly worded bill punishing unauthorized computer access. The bill is so broadly worded, it treats whistleblowers and overzealous spouses who look at their partner’s email without permission the same as malicious hackers and commercial spies, subjecting them to felony penalties and up to five years in prison. S-567 has already passed the Senate.

“Revenge Porn” (H 5770, S 0630)
Though purportedly aimed at “revenge porn,” this bill, the third in the Attorney General’s “computer crime” package, would require neither revenge nor porn in making the online sharing of certain images a crime. Instead, the simple retweeting or reposting online of a sexually explicit image without the direct consent of the person in the image could be a crime – even if the picture was initially taken and shared consensually. Retweeting or posting some of the disturbing pictures from Abu Ghraib or one of Anthony Weiner’s infamous photos, to give just two examples, could become a crime if this bill passes. The Senate has approved the bill; similar legislation also passed the Senate last year, but failed to receive a House vote.

Highway Interference (H 5192, H 5193, S 0129)
Following a series of post-Ferguson protests that took place in Providence, the General Assembly is considering creating a new crime of obstructing a freeway. Individuals who willfully block traffic can already be arrested and charged with disorderly conduct; the creation of new crimes, with harsher penalties, solely targeted at individuals engaging in political speech has troubling First Amendment implications. The bills introduced contain varying penalties for this new offense, including felony penalties, but all of them exceed the present punishment available for disorderly conduct.

Abortion Insurance Coverage (H 5784, S 0573)
The legislature is considering a number of abortion bills, including one requiring the state’s health exchange to offer health benefit plans that do not include abortion coverage. Although the federal Affordable Care Act will soon require the state’s exchange to include this option, the legislation provides no corresponding requirement that plans providing abortion coverage be similarly available. Another disturbing aspect of the bill is that in placing this anti-choice restriction into law, it does not attempt to codify any other activity of the health exchange, which was created by executive order.

Marijuana Cultivation Centers (H 6091, S 0791)
The medical marijuana program may take a hit if this legislation is passed. It would prohibit caregivers from growing marijuana themselves and instead require growing to occur in compassion centers and cultivation centers. The legislation eliminates the utility of caregivers for the many patients who cannot afford to purchase hiked-up marijuana prices from compassion centers, or who cannot travel far from their homes.

Background Checks (Various)
The ACLU is trying to stop the General Assembly from its recent trend of undermining the state’s Ban the Box legislation and other efforts at facilitating the employment of individuals with criminal records. A new series of bills would disqualify people from a wide range of jobs based on the results of criminal background checks. Although employment is a key factor in reducing recidivism, these bills increasingly disqualify individuals from consideration based on long-past offenses – including drug offenses and minor offenses like shoplifting – unrelated to the positions they seek.

Sex Offender Residency (H 6025, S 0754)
Even as those who treat sex offenders warn that the use of residency restrictions is counter-productive, the General Assembly is weighing tripling, from 300 to 1,000 feet, the distance from schools where sex offenders would be allowed to live. Residency restrictions provide no increased public safety, since the overwhelming majority of sex offenders are known to their victims (and most have not offended against children in any event). Instead, residency restrictions lead to homelessness for offenders, leaving them unable to maintain the stability they need while also sending them underground and outside the view of law enforcement and treatment officials.

National Guard Powers (S 0762)
The ACLU has testified against a broadly worded bill expanding the powers of the R.I. National Guard, allowing them to be called up for undefined “public safety reinforcement” activities. The ACLU argued that the bill could lead to Guard involvement in general policing, or even monitoring political protests.