Sarge Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Oh the irony Look out Larry http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/24/160224.shtml The American Civil Liberties Union, which prides itself on its defense of free speech, is considering new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization. "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 committee that compiled the standards wrote in its proposals. The reason? "Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the ACLU adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising," the proposals state. Some former board members were appalled by the proposals, the New York Times reports. Nat Hentoff, a writer and former ACLU board member, declared: "For the national board to consider promulgating a gag order on its members — I can't think of anything more contrary to the reason the ACLU exists.” Muriel Morisey, a law professor at Temple University and another former board member, said the proposals were an effort to stifle dissent. "It sets up a framework for punitive action,” she told the Times. The proposals state that "a director may publicly disagree with an ACLU policy position, but may not criticize the ACLU board or staff." But Wendy Kaminer, a board member who has been critical of some decisions made by the organization's leadership, pointed out: "If you disagree with a policy position, you are implicitly criticizing the judgment of whoever adopted the position." Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU's executive director, said it would be premature to discuss the proposals before the board reviews them at its June meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Counting down to lawsuit in 5... 4... 3... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramdizzle Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 shocker that this is happening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 24, 2006 Author Share Posted May 24, 2006 THis could be soooooo good if they put it in effect We could get the ACLU to sue the ACLU under the FOIA to obtain what they are covering up:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 THis could be soooooo good if they put it in effectWe could get the ACLU to sue the ACLU under the FOIA to obtain what they are covering up:laugh: does the FOIA cover non-govermental bodies? Pretty sure private entities dont have to disclose anything they do in their board rooms unless they are under criminal investigation. I do have to say that would be funny as hell to see the aclu sue the aclu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 24, 2006 Author Share Posted May 24, 2006 does the FOIA cover non-govermental bodies? Pretty sure private entities dont have to disclose anything they do in their board rooms unless they are under criminal investigation. I do have to say that would be funny as hell to see the aclu sue the aclu What's good for the goose................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 I've got two comments on this thing.... Firstly, I think it's a great idea. The less chance there is for the board members who might occassionally have a rational, common sense, logical thought to try and explain away their loony fellow members decisions, the more likely that Americans will see the Anti-Commonsense Liberals Union for exactly what it is. Secondly, if you think this is crazy, the medieval re-enactment group that I belong to has a policy stating that NO board member shall comment on ANY business of the executive committee and/or board outside the quarterly meetings. They issue the minutes of the meeting afterwards and cannot/will not comment on anything in the minutes afterwards. Oh, and these are closed-door private meetings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted May 25, 2006 Author Share Posted May 25, 2006 I've got two comments on this thing....Firstly, I think it's a great idea. The less chance there is for the board members who might occassionally have a rational, common sense, logical thought to try and explain away their loony fellow members decisions, the more likely that Americans will see the Anti-Commonsense Liberals Union for exactly what it is. Secondly, if you think this is crazy, the medieval re-enactment group that I belong to has a policy stating that NO board member shall comment on ANY business of the executive committee and/or board outside the quarterly meetings. They issue the minutes of the meeting afterwards and cannot/will not comment on anything in the minutes afterwards. Oh, and these are closed-door private meetings. But you're re-enactment group doesn't regularly sue to take God out of schools or defend NAMBLA, does it? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 But you're re-enactment group doesn't regularly sue to take God out of schools or defend NAMBLA, does it? :laugh: No, but it does regularly take action against members, in terms of banishments, revocation of membership, financial decisions, etc... for which they make no explaination to the membership. For example, in their April meeting, they banished four different members, with no reason given. The revoked the membership of two other members (in addition to the four they banished) without discussion of cause either. My point was more that there are other groups out there with equally or more stringent rules regarding the behavior of their board members and officials. It's not like the ACLU is the only group that limits (or is trying to) the free speech of its leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 It's not like the ACLU is the only group that limits (or is trying to) the free speech of its leadership. however, there isn't a group in which that fact produces as much irony as the aclu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 prediction: absolutly nothing ever comes of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 I have a lot of problems withn the ACLU, but this is such a non-issue. Last time I checked, the ACLU is a private organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 I have a lot of problems withn the ACLU, but this is such a non-issue. Last time I checked, the ACLU is a private organization. Which has nothing to do with it. The obvious conclusion drawn from this is that the ACLU is a hypocritical organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 The obvious conclusion drawn from this is that the ACLU is a hypocritical organization. No it's not obvious, as far as this issue goes. Any private organization has the right to set their own rules/policies. With that said, is the ACLU a hypocritical organization? Yes, absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC4 Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 The ACLU takes another step forward towards the repressive, Stalinist America it dreams of :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 The ACLU takes another step forward towards the repressive, Stalinist America it dreams of :doh: Please. Last time I checked they are fighting legislation like the Patriot Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Please. Last time I checked they are fighting legislation like the Patriot Act. Riight. The Patriot Act has been a critical enabler in prosecuting the GWOT. "Rights" and Freedom/Liberty - sometimes we must surrender some of our perceptions of the former in order to maintain the latter. Get over it. And yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Riight. The Patriot Act has been a critical enabler in prosecuting the GWOT. "Rights" and Freedom/Liberty - sometimes we must surrender some of our perceptions of the former in order to maintain the latter. Get over it. And yourself. Yeah you are right. Screw little things like due process and privacy. Big brother knows best. Big Brother would never abuse his power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Yeah you are right. Screw little things like due process and privacy. Big brother knows best. Big Brother would never abuse his power. The keyword in my last reply is perception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEF Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Is this the "Official Right-Wing Outrage Of the Day"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.