Background on lawsuit
In 2005, Library Connection received a National Security Letter (NSL) from the FBI, along with its accompanying perpetual gag order, demanding that the "libraries in the Library Connection network identify patrons who had used library computers online at a specific time one year earlier." In a case known as Doe v. Gonzales, George Christian, executive director of Library Connection, and three members of the executive committee of the board engaged the ACLU to file suit to challenge the constitutional validity of the NSL. Since violating the gag order is a prosecutable criminal offense all four members were listed in the lawsuit as either John Doe or Jane Doe. Because Section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which authorizes the FBI to demand records without prior court approval, also forbids, or gags, anyone who receives an NSL from telling anyone else about receiving it. The Connecticut Four also challenged the validity of the gag order. For almost a year the ACLU fought to lift the gag order, challenging the government’s power under Section 505 to silence four citizens who wished to contribute to public debate on the PATRIOT Act.
Contents
In May 2006, the government finally gave up its legal battle to maintain the gag order. On June 26, 2006, the ACLU announced that, after dropping its defense of the gag provision accompanying the NSL request, the FBI abandoned the lawsuit entirely.
The Connecticut Four were honored by the ALA with the 2007 Paul Howard Award for Courage for their challenge to the National Security Letter and gag order provision of the USA PATRIOT Act. The Connecticut Four met on September 28, 2016 for the first time since 2006 when the group spoke out against the excess demands made of the librarians by the FBI under the authority of the Patriot Act. The members of the Connecticut Four have also spoken out individually on numerous occasions regarding the excesses of the Patriot Act. As of September 28, 2016, the Connecticut Four have reunited as a group in the civil liberties cause to protect the civil liberties of both librarians and library patrons.
Members
Response
In a summary of the actions of the Connecticut Four and their challenge to the USA PATRIOT Act, Jones (2009: 223) notes: “Librarians need to understand their country’s legal balance between the protection of freedom of expression and the protection of national security. Many librarians believe that the interests of national security, important as they are, have become an excuse for chilling the freedom to read.”