posted May 25, 2006 12:46 AM            

These so called champions of free speech and civil dissent can't swallow their own medicine.

Wednesday, May 24, 2006 3:56 p.m. EDT
ACLU Wants Gag Rule for Board Members

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."

posted May 25, 2006 01:52 AM              

I read it and it's easy to see how Newmax has taken things out of context from the Times article and put their own spin on it.

posted May 25, 2006 08:38 AM            

Times
"The American Civil Liberties Union is weighing new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization's policies and internal administration.

NewsMax
"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. "

Times
"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.

NewsMax
"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"

Times
"Directors should remember that there is always a material prospect that public airing of the disagreement will affect the A.C.L.U. adversely in terms of public support and fund-raising," the proposals state.

NewsMax
"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.

Times
Given the organization's longtime commitment to defending free speech, some former board members were shocked by the proposals. Nat Hentoff, a writer and former A.C.L.U. board member, was incredulous. "You sure that didn't come out of Dick Cheney's office?" he asked. "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 A.C.L.U. exists," Mr. Hentoff added.
***Note the little leftist bast*rd Hentoff taking a shot at Cheney...even though Cheney has absolutely nothing to do with this article and nothing to do with the anti free speech and dissent stifling proposal of the ACLU board.

NewsMax
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.”

Times
But some former board members and A.C.L.U. supporters said the proposals were an effort to stifle dissent."It sets up a framework for punitive action," said Muriel Morisey, a law professor at Temple University who served on the board for four years until 2004.

NewsMax
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."

Times
The proposals say that "a director may publicly disagree with an A.C.L.U. policy position, but may not criticize the A.C.L.U. board or staff." But Wendy Kaminer, a board member and a public critic of some decisions made by the organization's leadership, said that was a distinction without a difference. "If you disagree with a policy position," she said, "you are implicitly criticizing the judgment of whoever adopted the position, board or staff."

NewsMax
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."

Now, NewsMax reporting on this Times story is true in every detail reported. It tells the story of the ACLU attempt to stifle free speech and dissent, it reports who said what, it reports all these comments in the same context as the Times article and it attributes the quotes used to the people who made them.

Further, NewsMax draws no conclusions about the ACLU controversy which are not contained within the remarks made by those quoted or the Times itself, nor does the NewsMax story go beyond the scope of the Times article or those quoted.

Reading with comprehension is very important...unless you happen to be a knee jerk leftist attempting to protect a so called champion of free speech and right of dissent which is itself attempting to remove the free speech rights of others and stifle dissent.