After nearly three years of construction, the University of Baltimore School of Law has unveiled its highly anticipated new addition to campus. The John and Frances Angelos Law Center is situated on the corner of Charles Street and Mount Royal Avenue in North Baltimore, on the same block as the train station I frequent on my daily commute to DC.

University of Baltimore Angelos Law Center

My family and I have enjoyed watching the building grow before our eyes. Notwithstanding the elevated stress from regular construction delays on the road leading into the train station, we are excited to see the final product and cannot wait for our chance to see the building up close and personal. The 12-story law center includes a 5-floor law library, a 300-seat moot courtroom, group study spaces, and classrooms.

The building itself is highly touted for its architectural uniqueness and its environmentally friendly features. With all of the windows and skylights, the building is designed to optimize natural light and the rooftop terrace includes a rainwater capture system to reduce the need for both electricity and water. From my perspective, it is an absolutely stunning original landmark for all visitors to Baltimore’s Station North neighborhood and beyond.

Lucifer, perhaps?

At the start of May for the last few years I’ve seen multiple news items about the baby names that were rejected by the New Zealand authorities during the previous year (e.g., Lucifer, Prince, J, Rogue…).  The list of names, and the fact that the government is able to deem them unacceptable, draws plenty of interest here in the U.S. and in other countries.  I’ve been meaning to look into the rules and their background for some time, so I finally sat down to do a bit of research and write this post.

First, the current law.  The Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995, section 18 (“Acceptance of Names”) provides that a Registrar “shall include in the information recorded under this Act or a former Act relating to a person’s birth any name or combination of names specified unless, in the Registrar’s opinion, it may be undesirable in the public interest for the person to bear it.”  (Section 18(2).)  “Undesirable in the public interest” is then defined later in the section:

(8) For the purposes of this section, it is undesirable in the public interest for a person to bear a name or combination of names if, and only if,

(a) it might cause offence to a reasonable person; or

(b) it is unreasonably long; or

(c) without adequate justification, it is, includes, or resembles, an official title or rank.

The section also sets out procedures for a name to be rejected, and for an affected person to appeal such a decision to the Family Court.

“Bad language” (Photo by Flickr user WordShore)

Section 18 was included in the legislation when it was originally enacted.  I thought I’d check back to see if any similar rules were included in previous legislation.  Looking through the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1951 was actually interesting anyway because of some of the concepts and terminology that it included (e.g., relating to illegitimate children).  But I didn’t find anything about the acceptability of names.  Before that, the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1924 was in place, and there had been various amendments to both.  No mention of unacceptable names there either.  Or in the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1908.  (You can even go back further to the Registration Acts of 1847 and 1858.)

Perhaps the “unique” name phenomenon arose relatively recently, or maybe it just wasn’t considered much of an issue in earlier years.  However, I did find some old New Zealand newspaper articles in my searches that refer to a baby being named “Nimrod Shackleton” in 1908 (following the Antarctic expedition on the Nimrod led by Ernest Shackleton) and a failed attempt by someone in Hungary to name their child “Titanic” following the 1912 sinking.  There was even a short snippet about a baby born in Wellington on a day of an earthquake in 1909 being named “Earthquakina.”  And a baby born on a train in Turkey in 1929 was named “Railroad.”

I figured that the best place to start to find information about why section 18 was included in the 1995 bill would be to look at the original version (bills in New Zealand include an explanatory note when they are introduced) and parliamentary records related to it.

The New Zealand Parliament website contains Hansard (Parliamentary Debates) records and bills back to 2002.  The New Zealand Legal Information Institute databases also contain bills, but only back to 1998.  Some older bills are provided for free in the Knowledge Basket research archives, but full access requires a subscription.  So I checked the hard copies of the Parliamentary Debates for 1995 and read the Third Reading speeches.  No mention of the acceptable name provision there!  (The discussion was more around access to records and registration of gender changes.)  However, I did discover that the bill had waited a long time to be passed – it was introduced in 1990.

This led me all the way back to the 1990 volumes of Hansard.  There was a brief debate about the bill on May 15 of that year upon the tabling of the select committee report on it.  Again, this was mainly about major changes being made, particularly in relation to the changing of birth certificates following sexual assignment surgery.  There was a brief comment about a recommended amendment to clause 20 relating to the acceptance of names by the registrar-general.  This followed a submission from a person who insisted upon using a single name only, which “drew to the attention of the select committee the confusion that existed under the previous legislation as to how many names should be supplied and whether a single name was a surname or a Christian name.”  The amended clause (now section 18(1)) provided that a Registrar cannot record any name or names unless one name is designated as a surname and there are one or more other names.  ([1990] 507 NZPD 1536.)  However, there was no mention of what the remainder of that name clause said.  Maybe it was further expanded later in the process?

Queen Victoria visiting the US Capitol?

Given some of the comments on (or in) the various news articles lamenting the restrictions on freedom of speech or expression arising from the government preventing parents from using the baby names of their choosing, I was also curious about what the advice from the Ministry of Justice might have been on the acceptable name provision.  The Ministry (or the Crown Law Office if the Ministry of Justice is the administering agency for the particular legislation) is tasked with providing an opinion to the Attorney-General as to whether or not a bill is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA).  Section 14 of BORA provides that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression.”

However, since the bill was apparently introduced in early 1990 or prior, the year that BORA was enacted, it’s highly unlikely that any such advice exists.  There has been advice on amendments to the 1995 legislation since then, but nothing specifically on the name provision.  (For future research reference: where a provision in a bill is found to be inconsistent with BORA, the Attorney-General must table what is known as a “section 7 report” when the bill is introduced in Parliament.  All section 7 reports back to 1990 are available on the Ministry of Justice website.  Advice on BORA-consistent bills is also available online back to 2003.)

As you can see, I wasn’t having much luck with my research!  I could probably search through several more volumes of Hansard but, in the end, locating the full rationale for the “acceptance of names” provision might require the making of requests to the relevant New Zealand agencies to obtain information relating to the original bill (such as the explanatory note, the select committee report, and departmental advice).  Sometimes researchers must go right to the source!

If you haven’t seen them already, you can take a look at the rejected names (and some “quirky” ones that have been accepted) for yourself in the various news articles.  Some might seem relatively benign (like “Justice“), while others are more unusual (like “4Real” and “Mafia No Fear”), and a few seem quite offensive.

A number of articles also discuss the laws of other countries with respect to names.  If time permitted, it would be interesting to research the different sources and reasons for the rules of these countries too, such as China, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, and Hungary (see above re “Titanic”).  Has anyone got some good information on these rules and their history?  What do you think about placing restrictions on names?  Is this an unwarranted restriction on free speech, or are there names or types of names that should be banned?

Globe, 2nd Floor, Main Entrance, Madison Building, Library of Congress.

The panelists, guided by moderator Mary-Jane Deeb, Chief of the African and Middle Eastern Division, will focus on the role of Shari’a law in the recent and ongoing constitutional drafting processes of Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.

Further discussion will include the impact of Islamic law on the legal systems of Arab Spring states with particular emphasis on personal status issues. The compatibility of Shari’a law and human rights along with the challenges facing women and minorities in transitioning Arab Spring countries will be addressed as well.

The distinguished panel will include Nathan J. Brown, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at the Elliot School of International Affairs at the George Washington University; Lama Abu-Odeh, Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center; and Issam Saliba, Senior Foreign Legal Specialist at the Law Library of Congress.

Mark your calendars for this informative event (and share with your friends on our Facebook page)! For those of our readers who will not be able to make it to the event, we will have a member of the In Custodia Legis team attend on your behalf and blog about it afterwards.  We will also live tweet the event via our @LawLibCongress Twitter account and use the hashtag #ArabSpring .

Cover of Evolution of Law Reform in China: An Uncertain Path, edited by Stanley B. Lubman.

On May 1 we celebrated Law Day 2013 here at the Law Library of Congress by presenting a panel discussion on the “Movement in America for Civil and Human Rights.”  For those who are not familiar with it, Law Day is a “national day to celebrate the rule of law and its contributions to the freedoms that Americans enjoy.”

The rule of law is also a crucial issue in the development of the Chinese legal system, which closely relates to other key issues of this rapidly changing country, including its sociopolitical stability and prospects of its economic growth.  The Chinese government recently underwent a leadership transition.  It remains to be seen whether the new leadership will live up to the goal of establishing Western-style rule of law and constitutionalism.

For readers interested in legal reform in China, here is a list of new books I’d like to highlight.  They are all in English, published in 2012 or later, and available at the Law Library of Congress for your use.  Of course, you can always search the whole collection by using the Library of Congress online catalog.

• Evolution of Law Reform in China: An Uncertain Path(Stanley B. Lubman ed., 2012);
  

  Contents page of In the Name of Justice: Striving for the Rule of Law in China, by He Weifang.

• He Weifang, In the Name of Justice: Striving for the Rule of Law in China (Brookings Institution Press, 2012);
• Qianfan Zhang, Constitution of China: a Contextual Analysis (Hart Publishing, 2012);
• Jonathan Benney, Defending Rights in Contemporary China (Routledge, 2013);
• Xiaobing Li and Qiang Fang, Modern Chinese Legal Reform: New Perspectives (University Press of Kentucky, 2013);
• Rethinking Law and Development: The Chinese Experience (Guanghua Yu ed., 2013); and
• China, Democracy, and Law: A Historical and Contemporary Approach (Mireille Delmas-Marty and Pierre-Etienne Will eds.; translated by Naomi Norberg with a foreword by Philip A. Kuhn, 2012).

I would like to thank Sabrina Hsu, head of the Law Library’s stack services division, for her help in preparing this post.

It is impossible to go into every act of terrorism that has occurred on British soil and detail the legislative response to each of these in this blog.  Instead, the post will look briefly at the legislative response after the London bombings on July 7, 2005 (commonly referred to as the 7/7 bombings).   The 7/7 bombings were a series of coordinated attacks by four suicide bombers that occurred in central London, killing 52 people and leaving 770 injured.

In the wake of these bombings, then Prime Minister Tony Blair held a press conference in where he asserted that the “rules of the game” for terrorists were changing.  Despite the existing anti-terrorism legislative regime, which was already substantive,  Blair announced that he was introducing a multifaceted twelve point plan against terrorism.  This plan aimed to take a tougher stance against individuals who encourage or advocate terrorism; to disrupt the recruitment and training of would-be terrorists; and make it more difficult for these individuals to remain in, or enter, the UK. 

The controversial measures were proposed in an unusual way by Blair by way of a press statement issued the day before he left for a summer vacation.  A number of newspapers reported that some members of his own cabinet, many of whom were also on vacation, were not fully aware of the measures he proposed until the release of the statement.

The measures proposed by Mr. Blair were a combination of legislative and administrative changes, supplementing the existing comprehensive anti-terror legislation with the aim of closing legal loopholes.  The measures not requiring legislation had immediate effect, although the implementation of some were delayed until after a brief public consultation.  Those requiring legislation were introduced during the 2005-6 Parliamentary session in the form of the Terrorism Bill.  The issue of ‘home grown’ extremists was tackled in part in the plan.  To prevent isolation and encourage a sense of ‘British pride’ amongst immigrants, Mr. Blair announced that the requirements to obtain British citizenship were to be reviewed with the intention of encouraging greater integration.

The Terrorism Bill faced considerable controversy and scrutiny in both the House of Commons and House of Lords and caused a rebellion from within Blair’s Labour Party.  Many of the proposals were defeated, with a number of Members from Blair’s own party voting against them.  Proposals that were defeated or dropped included those that would have enabled terrorist suspects to be detained for up to ninety days and those requiring the closure of extremist mosques. The Terrorism Bill was eventually passed and came into force in April 2006.

The use of these powers has been interesting.  Initial arrests after the bombings for terrorism related offences increased considerably, but with the majority of suspects later being released without charge either due to lack of evidence, or evidence that could not be used in court.

This piece of legislation is only one act of many that the Labour government introduced to tackle terrorism during its time in power.  The government has been criticised for introducing an overwhelming amount of legislation during its time, particularly on criminal offences.  It has been reported one criminal offence was created for each day the Labour party was in office.  The current coalition government is looking to review and potentially repeal some of these laws, considering among other things that the public consensus is that the laws need to be scaled back and have eroded civil liberties.

It is no wonder, then, that information about the law regarding nonprofits is one of our most popular public requests at the Law Library of Congress.  Patrons appear to be most concerned with how to create a nonprofit organization, how to deal with taxation issues, and how to properly govern a nonprofit organization (or deal with management conflicts as they arise).  Thus, we will try to address all of these issues, as well as provide information about internet resources that can assist those interested in nonprofit organizations and the laws that govern them.

“A man may be down but he’s never out!” Home Service Fund Campaign – Salvation Army – May 19-26, 1919, courtesy of the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division

Secondary Sources

Like we have suggested in some of our Beginner’s Guides in the past, the best place to start research on a new topic, such as the law of nonprofit organizations, for the first time is to use a secondary source, like a treatise, handbook, dictionary, encyclopedia, or a model act/law.  Once these sources provide you with a foundation in the area, you can use the citations they provide to drill down and find primary source materials.

For True Beginners

• Nonprofit Law Dictionary, by Bruce R. Hopkins (1994)
• The Law of Tax-Exempt Organizations in a Nutshell, by Scott A. Taylor (2011)
• Nonprofit Law & Governance for Dummies, by Jill Gilbert Welytok and Daniel S. Welytok (2007)
• The Complete Nonprofit Corporation Kit, by Mark Warda (2007)
• Nonprofit Corporation Forms Handbook (1990-present)

General

• The Law of Tax-Exempt Organizations, by Bruce R. Hopkins (2011)
• Starting and Managing a Nonprofit Organization: A Legal Guide, by Bruce R. Hopkins (2013 and 2009 editions)
• Understanding Nonprofit and Tax Exempt Organizations, by Nicholas P. Cafardi and Jaclyn Fabean Cherry (2012)
• Model Nonprofit Corporation Act: Official Text with Official Comments and Statutory Cross-References Adopted August 2008, by the Committee on Nonprofit Organizations; edited by William H. Clark, Jr. (2009)
• Rules of the Road: A Guide to the Law of Charities in the United States, by Betsy Buchalter Adler, Ingrid Mitermaier and David Levitt (2007)
• Complete Guide to Nonprofit Organizations: Law, Taxation, Operational Planning, edited by Penina Kessler Lieber and Donald R. Levy (2005)

Creation/Registration

• Nonprofit Fundraising Registration: The 50-State Guide, by Stephen Fishman, J.D. and Ronald J. Barrett (2013)
• Starting & Building a Nonprofit: A Practical Guide, by Peri H. Pakroo (2011)

Taxation

• Nonprofit Organizations: Law & Taxation, by Marilyn E. Phelan (2000-present)
• Tax Planning and Compliance for Tax-Exempt Organizations: Rules, Checklists, Procedures, by Jody Blazek (2012)
• Multistate Guide to Regulation and Taxation of Nonprofits (2006-present)

Governance

• Guidebook for Directors of Nonprofit Corporations, by the American Bar Association Nonprofit Organizations Committee; edited by Willard A. Boyd, III and Jeannie Carmedelle Frey (2012)
• Understanding Nonprofit Organizations: Governance, Leadership, and Management, edited by J. Steven Ott & Lisa A. Dicke (2012)
• The Nonprofit Board Answer Book: A Practical Guide for Board Members and Chief Executives (2012)
• Nonprofit Governance and Management, by the American Bar Association Section of Business Law; edited by Cherie Sorokin, et al. (2011)

Laws/Statutes

Most of the laws on the incorporation and maintenance of nonprofit organizations are dictated by state corporation law.  For more information about state laws and where to find them online, visit the Law Library’s Guide to Law Online. To find your state’s statutes, select your state from the Guide to Law Online page, and scroll down to the “Legislative” section.

With regard to federal laws, researchers will likely be most interested in the Internal Revenue Code, as many nonprofit and charitable organizations can be exempt from federal taxes as long as they adhere to certain guidelines: see the “General” and “Taxation” secondary sources listed above for more information.  The Internal Revenue Code is included in the United States Code at Title 26.  Tax regulations can generally be found in Title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

Online Resources

In addition to the resources listed above, those interested in the creation and governance of nonprofit organizations can find a wealth of helpful information on the internet.  Below are links to some websites, broken down by topic, that offer more information about the law of nonprofits.

Overviews/Handbooks

• “Starting a Nonprofit: What You Need to Know,” by the University of Richmond School of Law (2006)
• Legal Tools, by Law for Change
• Managing a Nonprofit, by NOLO
• Non-profit Organizations, by Cornell Legal Information Institute (LII)
• Nonprofits and State Filings for Nonprofits, by USA.gov

Clinics/Legal Representation

• “Where can I find ‘pro-bono’ legal assistance for my nonprofit organization?,” by the Foundation Center
• Pro Bono Providers Nationwide, by the Lawyers Alliance for New York
• For those in the D.C. area, check out the Social Enterprise and Nonprofit Clinic at the Georgetown University Law Center

Groups

• National Council of Nonprofits (its Resources page is particularly helpful for newcomers)
• Council on Foundations
• National Center for Charitable Statistics

News/Blogs

• The Chronicle of Philanthropy
• The Nonprofit Monitor
• The Nonprofit Quarterly
• Nonprofit Law Prof Blog
• Nonprofit Law Blog
• JDSupra’s Nonprofits Law News Twitter Feed

Information from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

• Publication 557: Tax Exempt Status for Your Organization
• Exempt Organizations Select Check
• Tax Information for Charitable Organizations

If you have any other favorite nonprofit law resources, please share them with us in the comments.

As always, please feel free to contact the Law Library of Congress if you have any questions.

In April, forty-five articles were published in the GLM.  The following is a list of the top five articles in the order of their popularity:

1. India: Criminal Law Amendment Bill on Rape Adopted
2. Japan/Taiwan: Landmark Fishing Agreement
3. Japan: Corporal Punishment in Schools
4. Poland: Draft Proposals Completed on Hydrocarbon Tax Law and Amendment to Geology and Mining Law
5. Nigeria: Supreme Court Upholds Bini Customary Law System of Primogeniture

In addition, although they did not get as much attention as those listed above, I thought the following three articles covering three timely themes (freedom of speech, health and safety, and veterans) were particularly interesting:

• The first, contributed by Constance Johnson, describes a recent Thailand court ruling in which a man was handed a sentence of over three years in prison for selling videos of an Australian show considered insulting to the country’s Royal Family.  The Thailand Criminal Code criminalizes defaming or insulting members of the Royal family, an offense punishable by up to fifteen years in prison.
• The second, contributed by Laney Zhang, discussed the implementation of China‘s first ever Mental Health Law, which was adopted in October 2012.  This law establishes procedures and oversight for involuntary institutionalization of mental health patients.
• Finally, the third, contributed by Ruth Levush, explains a recent Israel court of civil appeals decision accepting Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a disability, overturning a Defense Ministry appeals board decision.  As a result, the appellant, a former enlisted soldier who suffers from PTSD, will be eligible for medical care and benefits.

More articles on global legal developments are available at the Global Legal Monitor page on the Law Library of Congress website.  For a more convenient access, you may sign-up for email alerts or RSS feeds.  If you’re in the Twitterverse, you can also find out about some GLM articles through tweets via @LawLibCongress.

Describe your background?

I was born and raised in Georgia (country) when it was still a part of the Soviet Union. I remember life in a country that ceased to exist and the struggle for securing Georgian independence back in the 1990s. I always dreamed about helping Georgia to transform from “post-Soviet Union country” into a modern state governed by the rule of law and a free market economy.

What is your academic/professional history?

I received my JD and LL.M. degrees from the Tbilisi State University, Georgia.  Later I earned an LL.M in International Criminal Law from the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom.

I have done a range of jobs since finishing my education. I practiced law and defended journalists in the courts in freedom of expression and libel cases. I worked as assistant to a member of Parliament.  I have also worked at the Ministry of Justice where I was a part of a group that drafted Georgia’s new Criminal Procedure Code. Currently, I work as a Director at the Civil Service Bureau of Georgia (CSB) and I feel very privileged to lead this executive branch agency in implementing the Georgian President’s anti-corruption and transparency projects within the government.

How would you describe your job to other people?

At the CSB we develop and implement projects aimed at increasing transparency and efficiency of the government. We help the public to get more information about senior officials’ incomes and expenditures with the purpose of having more civic control over the government. We make sure that access to career opportunities in the civil service is simple and easy for everyone in Georgia. The systems of Public Financial Disclosure and Online Recruitment System are two most recent examples of our efforts to bring the government closer to the people.  In all our projects we rely heavily on e-governance tools because we believe the web and social media are the future of communication between the citizen and the government.

Why did you want to work at the Library of Congress?

I came to the Library as a participant of the Legislative Fellows Program. This program is sponsored by the U.S. State Department, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and administered by the American Councils for International Education.  This program brings young professionals from the countries of Eastern and Southern Europe to the United States so that they get practical experience and exposure to the United States government. My fellow co-participants are having their fellowships in state legislatures and city halls across the United States. I feel lucky to be placed at the Law Library of Congress

I love to read and write.  I authored several articles and a book , and run a column in a popular Georgian weekly publication. I also have my own blog.

Here at the Law Library, I am with the Global Legal Research Center.  I was asked to prepare legislative updates on Georgia and answer inquires on Georgian laws. I also drafted an article for the Global Legal Monitor, an online Law Library publication, about public financial disclosures in my country. To me, the Library of Congress looks like a place where traditions meet dynamism, lively discussions and progress. This is one of the oldest institutions and it is full of history and has strong record of successful projects. I believe Georgia has a lot to learn from the history, knowledge, and experiences of the Library. When I go back, I plan to brief my colleagues on the issues that are relevant to their work.

What is the most interesting fact you have learned about the Law Library of Congress?

It is absolutely fascinating for me to work in the building that holds the largest collection of legal texts in the world and places its materials on 838 miles of bookshelves! It was also a discovery for me to learn that the Law Library of Congress does legal research for the United States Congress and other federal agencies and responds to requests from people living all over the world.

What’s something most of your co-workers do not know about you?

When I was a kid I wanted to be a doctor. However, at the very last moment I made another career choice and became a lawyer. Looking back, I can say without hesitation that I am very happy with my early life decision.

I am also a very big fan of tennis and I have played since my school years. I even won several championships in my home city tennis club!

Panelists at the May 1 event included Risa L. Goluboff, Professor of Law and History at the University of Virginia and Scholar in Residence at the Library’s John W. Kluge Center; Kirk Rascoe, Director of Opportunity, Inclusiveness, and Compliance at the Library of Congress; Jeffrey Rosen, Professor of Law at The George Washington University and Legal Affairs Editor of The New Republic; and Theodore M. Shaw, Office Counsel to Fulbright & Jaworski LLP and Professor of Professional Practice at Columbia University School of Law.

Law Day Panel. From Left to Right: Theodore Shaw, Jeffrey Rosen, Carrie Johnson, Kirk Rascoe and Risa Goluboff. Photo Source: Abby Brack Lewis.

Moderator Johnson spurred discussion around the central issue of the event: whether we are close to realizing the dream of equality. The question is quite timely. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two major race-related cases this term, with potential implications for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and affirmative action on college campuses. Broadly, the panelists were urged to consider whether our common definition of “equality for all” is expanding to include the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual (LGBT) community, a right to gay marriage, and people with disabilities.

The panelists began the discussion with the definition of equality, both in terms of formal and informal equality. Formal equality refers to equality under the law while informal equality is reflected in cultural and socio-economic disparities. The definition has evolved since the Civil War to include equality based on gender, sexual orientation and wealth. Over the past two decades, the United States has expanded the definition further into the realm of access issues related to physical disabilities, educational abilities and the digital divide.

Next, the discussion turned to the relationship between the courts and civil rights activists. With the U.S. Supreme Court considering two race-related cases this term – one related to the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the second centered on college campuses and affirmative action, the panelists responded to Johnson’s inquiry into what these cases tell us about the state of equality going forward. Will higher education institutions and the electorate find other avenues to achieve equality even if the Court strikes down these two cases? The panelists developed a consensus of concern that certain sections of the Voting Rights Act may be at risk, while some argued we cannot rely upon the courts alone to uphold equality-that there is still a role for civil rights activists.

To round out the discussion, Johnson asked the panelists to predict how the concept of equality will change over the next twenty-five (25) years. It has expanded already to include the LGBT community, a right to gay marriage, people with disabilities, and the current focus on the immigrant community. The panelists identified freedom from digital surveillance as a potentially burgeoning civil liberties issue and one connected to the right to protest.

We thank Carrie Johnson and the panelists for a very informative and thought-provoking discussion.

As mentioned in last week’s pic of the week post, the first draft of the Emancipation Proclamation, handwritten by President Abraham Lincoln was placed on display at the close of the program for a period of thirty (30) minutes. Michelle Krowl, Historian with the Library’s Manuscript Division, was on hand to answer questions from the onlookers.

Robert (@LawLibCongress) and Bernadette (@THOMASdotgov) live tweeted during the event using the hashtag #LawDay and posted this photo of the Emancipation Proclamation.

First draft of the Emancipation Proclamation, handwritten by President Abraham Lincoln. Photo Source: Robert Brammer

The draft was recently on display in “The Civil War in America” exhibition, which runs through Jan. 4, 2014, in the Southwest Exhibition Gallery of the Thomas Jefferson Building, 10 First St. S.E. in Washington, D.C. The exhibition is free and open to the public, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday.

Check back soon as we will post the webcast of this program once it becomes available.