NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Love 'em or hate 'em, the ACLU has been in the forefront of the defense of free speech and other human rights in America. The current controversy over a recommendation by the Board of the organization highlights a sort of double standard within the organization. In effect, the Board is limiting the freedom of speech of their own members. I can understand why the Board wouldn't want members publically criticising their decisons, but the cognitive dissonance seems a bit much to swallow. What do you think???


A.C.L.U. Board Members Debate Limits on Their Own Speech (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/us/18aclu.html?th&emc=th)


By STEPHANIE STROM
Published: June 18, 2006
Several board members of the American Civil Liberties Union expressed concerns at a meeting yesterday over proposed standards that would prohibit board members from publicly criticizing the organization's policies and internal operations.

"I cannot vote for these proposals, as I have violated them nearly every time I have written an op-ed piece or spoken to the press," said Mary Ellen Gale, an at-large member.

Bennett Hammer, a board member representing the organization's New Mexico affiliate, cited examples of decisions in the last few years that he said had embarrassed the A.C.L.U. and contended that adopting the proposals would be yet another of "the things that have made us a laughingstock with the public."

The board nonetheless voted against motions to strike the controversial provisions from the proposals and instead opted for further discussion.

Emily Whitfield, an A.C.L.U. spokeswoman, said the failure of the motions was not an endorsement of the proposals. "A vote at this early stage would have been a departure from the board's deliberative process, and to suggest otherwise would be unfair and misleading," she wrote in an e-mail message.

One of the provisions said, "a director may publicly disagree with an A.C.L.U. policy position, but may not criticize the A.C.L.U. board and staff."

Another said, "Where an individual director disagrees with a board position on matters of civil liberties policy, the director should refrain from publicly highlighting the fact of such disagreement."

The provisions have attracted criticism from several newspaper editorial boards, members and donors, who said they clashed with the A.C.L.U.'s historic defense of free speech.

"I truly believe the A.C.L.U.'s finest moment was its defense of the Nazi party," said Alan Kahn, a longtime A.C.L.U. member, referring to the organization's legal support of the party's right to march through a heavily Jewish Chicago suburb in the 1970's. "How can the A.C.L.U. not support the same right for its board members?"

Mr. Kahn, a retired Wall Street executive, said he was working to form a group to provide external oversight of the organization's governance. "This is too important an institution," he said. "I can't just sit by and let it go awry."

The controversy over the proposals even persuaded Ira Glasser, the former executive director of the A.C.L.U., to attend the meeting yesterday, despite an oath he made at his retirement five years ago to stay away. "I had never thought I'd come to another board meeting," Mr. Glasser said, "but I came to listen to this debate because I had received an unusual amount of calls and e-mails asking me what was going on at the A.C.L.U., and I decided to come and see for myself."

The provisions aimed at regulating board members' public speech are part of a broader set of proposals intended to define the rights and responsibilities of board members, and members of the committee that drafted them said they were meant to be guidelines, not policy.

"Perceiving this to be a policy does laden this with considerable significance that we never intended," Calien Lewis, a committee member, said.

But some board members said the report and its proposals would have the effect of policy, particularly if the board voted on them. "Whether we call it a policy or not, this is a statement of what we stand for as the A.C.L.U.," said Adrian White, a lawyer who represents the organization's New York affiliate on the board.

Eight local affiliates — Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia and Washington, D.C. — passed resolutions objecting to the parts of the committee report that would limit board members' speech. "We wanted to send a clear message of what we didn't think the board should be doing," said Bruce W. Gilchrist, president of the board of the Washington affiliate.

Some affiliates also opposed a proposal that would sanction the destruction of tapes of board meetings once minutes were compiled. Members plan to discuss that proposal when the meeting, a regular quarterly gathering of the full board, continues today in New York.

"The A.C.L.U. of Louisiana believes that a full and accurate record of A.C.L.U. national board meetings must be retained and preserved to protect the historical record," the Louisiana affiliate's resolution said.

The committee was formed last year, after board leaders decided not to pursue disciplinary action against two board members who had criticized them, the board at large and the executive director of the organization, Anthony D. Romero.

Instead, they appointed the committee to set standards to determine when board members could be suspended or ousted. The committee rejected that rationale as its guiding principle, but several board members said its proposals would nonetheless be used for that purpose.

Many board members, however, acknowledged the need for more formal board orientation procedures. "I totally agree about the need for guidelines and processes so dissident members know what process they should follow," said Luz Buitrago, an at-large member.

Irony at its finest.

Irony at its finest.
I think so too.

Thank you ACLU for reminding us all what HYPOCRACY looks like..

Typical liberal, left wing, lawyer, America Can't Live without Us doublespeak. :rolleyes:

Typical liberal, left wing, lawyer, America Can't Live without Us doublespeak. :rolleyes:
Heh! Your cynicism is showing. :p

It seems the ACLU and UN are similar in that everything they do is tainted with greed, and completely irrelevant to the rest of the world....

Several board members of the American Civil Liberties Union expressed concerns at a meeting yesterday over proposed standards that would prohibit board members from publicly criticizing the organization's policies and internal operations.

...


Emily Whitfield, an A.C.L.U. spokeswoman, said the failure of the motions was not an endorsement of the proposals. "A vote at this early stage would have been a departure from the board's deliberative process, and to suggest otherwise would be unfair and misleading," she wrote in an e-mail message.

The provisions have attracted criticism from several newspaper editorial boards, members and donors, who said they clashed with the A.C.L.U.'s historic defense of free speech.

...

The provisions aimed at regulating board members' public speech are part of a broader set of proposals intended to define the rights and responsibilities of board members, and members of the committee that drafted them said they were meant to be guidelines, not policy.

"Perceiving this to be a policy does laden this with considerable significance that we never intended," Calien Lewis, a committee member, said.

But some board members said the report and its proposals would have the effect of policy, particularly if the board voted on them. "Whether we call it a policy or not, this is a statement of what we stand for as the A.C.L.U.," said Adrian White, a lawyer who represents the organization's New York affiliate on the board.

Eight local affiliates — Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia and Washington, D.C. — passed resolutions objecting to the parts of the committee report that would limit board members' speech. "We wanted to send a clear message of what we didn't think the board should be doing," said Bruce W. Gilchrist, president of the board of the Washington affiliate.

...
"The A.C.L.U. of Louisiana believes that a full and accurate record of A.C.L.U. national board meetings must be retained and preserved to protect the historical record," the Louisiana affiliate's resolution said.

The committee was formed last year, after board leaders decided not to pursue disciplinary action against two board members who had criticized them, the board at large and the executive director of the organization, Anthony D. Romero.

...

Many board members, however, acknowledged the need for more formal board orientation procedures. "I totally agree about the need for guidelines and processes so dissident members know what process they should follow," said Luz Buitrago, an at-large member.

What I think? That some board members have made a proposal and decision that seem unpopular within the organization itself and will likely not survive but some people are going to use this early report, without any follow up to rattle thier personal sabres against the ACLU with misleading and incomplete information. So, nothing new.

Wow, if this thread isn't going to attract every crackpot neocon and ACLU hater here I don't know what will.

PS, you should stop bolding stuff because that encourages people to not fucking read it. Hurray for biased reporting!

The provisions aimed at regulating board members' public speech are part of a broader set of proposals intended to define the rights and responsibilities of board members, and members of the committee that drafted them said they were meant to be guidelines, not policy.

Wow, if this thread isn't going to attract every crackpot neocon and ACLU hater here I don't know what will.

PS, you should stop bolding stuff because that encourages people to not fucking read it. Hurray for biased reporting!
I was doing the bolding to play with directed interpretation but lost interest. With bolding there where two articles kind of thing...not that it would dent anything...

I was doing the bolding to play with directed interpretation but lost interest. With bolding there where two articles kind of thing...not that it would dent anything...
I have no idea what you said but I was talking to Eutrusca with his short paragraph commentary and long news article posts with all the parts he wants you to see in bold.

God bless the ACLU.

A careful reading of this makes it pretty clear that this is a proposal, not a new rule for the organization.

"Emily Whitfield, an A.C.L.U. spokeswoman, said the failure of the motions was not an endorsement of the proposals. "A vote at this early stage would have been a departure from the board's deliberative process, and to suggest otherwise would be unfair and misleading," she wrote in an e-mail message."

It's important to remember that the essence of being reasonable is debating reasonably.

It seems the ACLU and UN are similar in that everything they do is tainted with greed, and completely irrelevant to the rest of the world....


Well, they are called the "American Civil Liberties Union" because what they do is primarily relevant to the US.

As for greed, a little hard to see what you're getting at or whether you know what you're talking about because you didnt provide any examples.

They probably just dont want thier board mambers to say something stupid thats gets them in trouble.

Well, they are called the "American Civil Liberties Union" because what they do is primarily relevant to the US.

The point being that they are irrelevant here in the US, as well as to the rest of the world, just as the UN is. As far as providing you with examples of greed, you can do your own research, the post was my opinion, not trying to teach a class. No need to make attacks against the poster.

The point being that they are irrelevant here in the US, as well as to the rest of the world, just as the UN is. As far as providing you with examples of greed, you can do your own research, the post was my opinion, not trying to teach a class. No need to make attacks against the poster.

Not much of an opinion I must say, if only because it isnt grounded in any sort of facts.

The ACLU is far from irrelevant, they regularly provide expert legal counsel when the rights of those who could otherwise not afford it are abriged.

They help make new precedent that explands our freedom.

God bless the ACLU.

A careful reading of this makes it pretty clear that this is a proposal, not a new rule for the organization.

"Emily Whitfield, an A.C.L.U. spokeswoman, said the failure of the motions was not an endorsement of the proposals. "A vote at this early stage would have been a departure from the board's deliberative process, and to suggest otherwise would be unfair and misleading," she wrote in an e-mail message."

It's important to remember that the essence of being reasonable is debating reasonably.
Which is precisely why I bolded this:
But some board members said the report and its proposals would have the effect of policy, particularly if the board voted on them. "Whether we call it a policy or not, this is a statement of what we stand for as the A.C.L.U.," said Adrian White, a lawyer who represents the organization's New York affiliate on the board.

The whole thing doesnt seem particularly newsworthy.

Slow day at the times, I guess.

So a private organization regulating the ability of its high-ranking members to criticize it is equivalent to a government restrictions on the right to free expression?

Just another reason why the leftist should not exist.

Just another reason why the leftist should not exist.

It almost pains me to do it but I'm going to defend the frickin' ACLU here.

The ACLU is needed here. It isnt my favorite organisation and I damned sure disagree with alot of the scoundrels whose rights they defend but unfortunately we need em. They are a kind of necessary evil in my book. Nobody else is ready to jump straight into the fire for certain (NOT all) ammendments to the Constitution. This little bit of policy is exactly the kind of top heavy hypocrisy that might split and break the ACLU. If there was any other organisation able or even willing to try to fill a void left by the ACLU crumbling I would be glad of this news. There isnt so Im not.

So what if they did?

Seriously, it's not a policy I'd be personally crazy about... but to call them hypocrites on free speech doctrine is to reify the concept of "free speech" to the point that it begins to lose its original--and extremely important--meaning. (Of course, this happens to be something the ACLU does anyway, but let's keep that argument where it belongs.)

Free speech doctrine was developed with respect to government activities, with particular government goals--and government evils--in mind. The very people who enshrined this doctrine in our own Constitution would have counseled policies of silence in many of their other public and private activities; no, not because they were "hypocrites," but because they feared the consequences of allowing a government with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force deciding what speech it does and does not like... because, more to the point, they were attempting to protect principles of republican government that they hoped would prevent injustice and tyranny.

Unless you want to argue that the ACLU's (proposed) policy would harm American democracy or American civil rights, you cannot call them hypocrites. Indeed, most likely the policy was suggested in the first place because the organization has an important mission--the defense of American civil rights--and there is some reason to believe that public disunity can hurt the organization and it's goal. In any case, they are not suggesting limits on speech or dissent within the organization; rather, the proposal merely wishes to prevent dissenters from making it a public, rather than an organizational, issue.

And here is the critical issue, you see: at the level of popular government, all dissent is by definition public dissent. To suppress it is necessarily to make the government less democratic, less popular.

To keep the internal debates of a private organization private, however, does not change the nature of the organization. The fact that they advocate free and open public dissent has nothing to do with their internal operations.

To reiterate, this would not be my first choice as an organizational policy. Indeed, I might be inclined to vote against it (although I would be very interested in arguments in its favor).

It makes no sense, however, to claim that this represents some departure from the ideals of the ACLU. To do that, you need to pretend that "free speech" is a much more abstract idea than it actually is. You need to disconnect it from all historical context and rationale.

You need, in short, to argue in a typically postmodern way. Seeing as this seems to be the trend these days, I truly fear for us all.

Curious that the ACLU will defend Neo-Nazis and NAMBLA, but it won't fight gun control.

Curious that the ACLU will defend Neo-Nazis and NAMBLA, but it won't fight gun control.

Their explanation, for what it's worth. (http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html)

Their explanation, for what it's worth. (http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html)
Already read it. Doesn't satisfy me; basically they say, "there are reasonable restrictions to gun ownership" which should be determined by Congress. Well, so what? There are reasonable restrictions to freedom of speech and assembly, but the ACLU fights them tooth and nail.

Already read it. Doesn't satisfy me; basically they say, "there are reasonable restrictions to gun ownership" which should be determined by Congress. Well, so what? There are reasonable restrictions to freedom of speech and assembly, but the ACLU fights them tooth and nail.

Ah, but the difference (as they see it) is quite simple. Since it is not plausible to imagine a world with zero restrictions on personal ownership of "arms"--which would include nuclear weapons--there is no principled way to decide where the cut-off should be.

Because, however, it is reasonably plausible to imagine a world in which there is no restriction on the freedom of speech, the ACLU can consistently claim that there should be none, on principle.

Really, I can't believe you gun nuts don't get this.

By the way, I am strongly opposed to most forms of federal gun control. Indeed, I don't even think it should be a state issue... I think it should be primarily local, so that the cities can have a different policy from more rural areas.

EDIT: To clarify, this would require significant coordination between local, state, and federal authorities to make it work.

Ah, but the difference (as they see it) is quite simple. Since it is not plausible to imagine a world with zero restrictions on personal ownership of "arms"--which would include nuclear weapons--there is no principled way to decide where the cut-off should be.

Because, however, it is reasonably plausible to imagine a world in which there is no restriction on the freedom of speech, the ACLU can consistently claim that there should be none, on principle.

Really, I can't believe you gun nuts don't get this.

By the way, I am strongly opposed to most forms of federal gun control. Indeed, I don't even think it should be a state issue... I think it should be primarily local, so that the cities can have a different policy from more rural areas.
Plus, it's not like there isn't already a large, well funded, influential lobbying organization in existance that already focuses soley on that one amendment or anything...

Because, however, it is reasonably plausible to imagine a world in which there is no restriction on the freedom of speech, the ACLU can consistently claim that there should be none, on principle.

Really, I can't believe you gun nuts don't get this.



I gedditt now.

Humor.

HAR HAR!

Theres and Onion article for everything!
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39182

Ah, but the difference (as they see it) is quite simple. Since it is not plausible to imagine a world with zero restrictions on personal ownership of "arms"--which would include nuclear weapons--there is no principled way to decide where the cut-off should be.

Because, however, it is reasonably plausible to imagine a world in which there is no restriction on the freedom of speech, the ACLU can consistently claim that there should be none, on principle.

Really, I can't believe you gun nuts don't get this.

By the way, I am strongly opposed to most forms of federal gun control. Indeed, I don't even think it should be a state issue... I think it should be primarily local, so that the cities can have a different policy from more rural areas.

EDIT: To clarify, this would require significant coordination between local, state, and federal authorities to make it work.
A world were there is no restriction on the freedom of speech or assembly would allow riots and defamation. In such a world, if someone announces publicly that they intend to hijack and crash an airliner just before they board it, they would not be stopped from boarding the aircraft. Personally, I find such an extreme to be 'implausible'.

And FYI I don't own any guns.

Perhaps "American Civil Lunacy Union" would be more apt. These are the people who defend the rights of criminals but ignore the rights of victims. In theory, they are necessary; in practice, they do a great deal of harm.

Perhaps "American Civil Lunacy Union" would be more apt. These are the people who defend the rights of criminals but ignore the rights of victims. In theory, they are necessary; in practice, they do a great deal of harm.I guess it depends on what you consider those rights to be. Do you want a society based on justice, or one based on retribution & vengeance?

Curious that the ACLU will defend Neo-Nazis and NAMBLA, but it won't fight gun control.


The NRA does an excellent job of that, so it would be a waste of limited resources that are much better used elsewhere.

The NRA does an excellent job of that, so it would be a waste of limited resources that are much better used elsewhere.

Exactly. Why double up resources? That's why I'm a member of both.

A world were there is no restriction on the freedom of speech or assembly would allow riots and defamation. In such a world, if someone announces publicly that they intend to hijack and crash an airliner just before they board it, they would not be stopped from boarding the aircraft. Personally, I find such an extreme to be 'implausible'.

Such a world would be implausible. Fortunately for the doctrine of free speech, it does not describe a world in which such a freedom is unlimited.

First, one can forbit riots without forbidding speech. Indeed, current practices come damn close to this now... Basically, the police can only stop a speaker (or arrest her/him after the fact) when he/she is literally inciting others to violence. In fact, they need more: If I walk into the town square and start yelling "Riot! Riot! Loot the place!"... I haven't done anything wrong, so long as there is no good reason to believe people will actually listen to me.

Is it plausible to believe that this could be taken to the ultimate extreme of free speech? Sure... While it might increase certain inconveniences of public life, it would be possible to institute an "arrest the rioters, not the speakers" policy. This would be barely different than what we have now.

Second, you mention defamation. Again, it would be inconvenient, but the world can survive the collapse of defamation law. In fact, in the United States the libel standard for public officials is so high ("actual malice") that in most cases it is nearly impossible to prove.

Finally, announcing that you plan to hijack a jet... Refusing to let them on the jet does not violate free speech at all, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

EDIT: Just to be clear, this does not violate free speech for one great reason: An airline can refuse to board a passenger for any reason it wants (short of discrimination and other legal violations). An airline is not the government. It does not need to respect free speech.

Besides which, even if it were a government plane, an "absolute" freedom of speech could, again, allow the speech but not the actions. Not so bad.

The A.C.L.U. has a good idea behind it: defend Constitutional rights and counterattack attacks upon those rights. It has lead to an enormouse number of controversial cases, including the aforementioned Nazi Party defense, as well as the defense of N.A.M.b.L.A.(What exactly does that stand for? The Man/boy Love part is obvious, as is the N for National, but what do the two A's stand for?). Simultaneously, many "conservatives" and Republicans attack it for stances they find hypocritical, such as the A.C.L.U.'s fight to have Christmas decorations on government property removed(which I agreed with because it is an endorsement of religion by the state. Fuck you if you celebrate Christmas: you're not going to endorse a religion if I have anything to say about it.) In this case too, I can understand why they are doing what they are doing.,

Still, the A.C.L.U. is full of hypocrasy and idiocy at times. It is not perfect. No organization would be. But it's a damned sight better than any other similar organization I've seen. You wouldn't catch me dead with an A.C.L.U. card, but I still respect it.

What exactly does that stand for? The Man/boy Love part is obvious, as is the N for National, but what do the two A's stand for?).

North American Man/Boy Love Association

Just another reason why the leftist should not exist.

The leftist?

There's actually several of us, and we're here, we're queer, and we don't want anymore bears!

we don't want anymore bears!You obviously have no idea what I want, so why do you presume to speak on my behalf?

Leave the authoritarian crap to the rightwingers.

Exactly. Why double up resources? That's why I'm a member of both.

Ditto

Such a world would be implausible. Fortunately for the doctrine of free speech, it does not describe a world in which such a freedom is unlimited.

First, one can forbit riots without forbidding speech. Indeed, current practices come damn close to this now... Basically, the police can only stop a speaker (or arrest her/him after the fact) when he/she is literally inciting others to violence. In fact, they need more: If I walk into the town square and start yelling "Riot! Riot! Loot the place!"... I haven't done anything wrong, so long as there is no good reason to believe people will actually listen to me.

Is it plausible to believe that this could be taken to the ultimate extreme of free speech? Sure... While it might increase certain inconveniences of public life, it would be possible to institute an "arrest the rioters, not the speakers" policy. This would be barely different than what we have now.

Somehow I doubt the police are that meticulous in keeping within those definitions. The 'inciting people to violence' is a restriction on freedom of speech. So is the rioting deal; suppose some morons in my city decide to get drunk and party in the middle of main street every day for the rest of their lives, because it's their right to assemble on whatever street they want, whenever they what, regardless of the 'inconvenience' it causes hundreds of communters. There are restrictions on when and where and how you can have protests and speeches, and they should exist.

Surely, a world were everyone could own missile launchers would be slightly less 'convenient' than one where they were limited to doing their hunting or what have you with mere rifles or handguns. But implausible? Take each to their extreme, and you run into problems.

Second, you mention defamation. Again, it would be inconvenient, but the world can survive the collapse of defamation law. In fact, in the United States the libel standard for public officials is so high ("actual malice") that in most cases it is nearly impossible to prove.

Maybe the world can. Can a single individual who was victimized by it? Defamation can ruin lives and careers. Could the world survive private ownership of rocket launchers?


Finally, announcing that you plan to hijack a jet... Refusing to let them on the jet does not violate free speech at all, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

EDIT: Just to be clear, this does not violate free speech for one great reason: An airline can refuse to board a passenger for any reason it wants (short of discrimination and other legal violations). An airline is not the government. It does not need to respect free speech.

Besides which, even if it were a government plane, an "absolute" freedom of speech could, again, allow the speech but not the actions. Not so bad.
Ah, here we get into the gray areas. Is the airline perfectly within its rights to discriminate against someone who announces an intent to plant a bomb in a plane? What if it receives government aid, subsidies? What if it is a public city transport, like a bus, instead? Sounds like a restriction of free speech to me.