ACLU Requests Speech Codes

[NoZed Avenger]

There was a time when I really admired the ACLU and its work.

Then, for a time, I questioned some of its decisions and emphasis, but gave it a the benefit of the doubt because of its past work.

At some point, however, the organzation seems to have completely changed. Last year they had the problem when it was discovered that the organziation was keeping and tracking infor through cookies that it criticized other companies/entities for having. The organziation seems to have turned into a "do as I say, not as I do" type of thing somewhere along the line.

And now the ACLU has proposed this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/u...1f6941a5d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

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.

"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.

Can you imagine what the ACLU would say if this type of standard were adopted by a major corporation?

 

[Manny]

Oh, it gets better than that. In trying to defend that crap, the ACLU's Executive Director said, "Take hate speech," he said. "While believing in free speech, we do not believe in or condone speech that attacks minorities."

You read that correctly! See here. The organization which thinks Nazis should be able to march through Jewish neighborhoods (which, for the record, they should be so allowed) does "not believe in or condone speech that attacks minorities." As long as, apparently, the ACLU gets to choose the minorities and define the speech which is hateful. You see, someone has to be the arbitor of what speech is acceptable. And since the people actually elected by Americans can't be trusted to make that decision, it obviously ought to be the people who draw a paycheck from the ACLU. Not even their board members -- the staff.

For the record, if you (the person reading this) contribute to the ACLU, you condone this. Randi, by inviting the ACLU's senior staff to his meetings, condones this. And sadly, I (by contributing to Randi) condoned this.

 

[Tony]

There was a time when I really admired the ACLU and its work.

Can you imagine what the ACLU would say if this type of standard were adopted by a major corporation?

I agree, let's wait and see if they do the right thing and reverse this policy.

 

[Bob Klase]

The organization which thinks Nazis should be able to march through Jewish neighborhoods (which, for the record, they should be so allowed) does "not believe in or condone speech that attacks minorities." As long as, apparently, the ACLU gets to choose the minorities and define the speech which is hateful.

You lost me somewhere in there. Where is the ACLU choosing minorities and/or choosing which speech is hateful? What is the problem with them defending free speech even though it may be saying things they don't like? Defending only the things you like is hardly noble.

You see, someone has to be the arbitor of what speech is acceptable. And since the people actually elected by Americans can't be trusted to make that decision

I certainly don't trust them to make it. I don't trust the ACLU enough to make that decision either. However, since the government is usually the one trying to limit it and the ACLU is usually the one trying to stop them, I'd tend to be on the side of the ACLU in most of those battles.

For the record, if you (the person reading this) contribute to the ACLU, you condone this. Randi, by inviting the ACLU's senior staff to his meetings, condones this. And sadly, I (by contributing to Randi) condoned this.

I'm still lost on that one. What are they condoning? The defense of free speech? Or are you talking about the attempt to shut the ACLU employees up?

 

[Tony]

And since the people actually elected by Americans can't be trusted to make that decision.

The people elected by Americans can't be trusted with such a decision. The Founding Fathers knew that, which is why we have the first amendment.

 

[bigred]

There was a time when I really admired the ACLU and its work.

You must be really, really old.

PS and hey oh btw ACLU: shove this up your protest sign

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/24/military.funerals.ap/index.html

 

[Darat]

Whilst from the limited reading I've just done can see that a charge of hypocrisy could be leveled at them if they adopted this new proposed standard as a policy, so far however (as far as I read) they haven't adopted this policy.

I also don't understand a lot of the other criticisms being leveled at them in this thread.

...snip..

You read that correctly! See here. The organization which thinks Nazis should be able to march through Jewish neighborhoods (which, for the record, they should be so allowed) does "not believe in or condone speech that attacks minorities." As long as, apparently, the ACLU gets to choose the minorities and define the speech which is hateful. You see, someone has to be the arbitor of what speech is acceptable. And since the people actually elected by Americans can't be trusted to make that decision, it obviously ought to be the people who draw a paycheck from the ACLU. Not even their board members -- the staff.

From this is reads as if the ACLU has some form of legislative power!

I could understand this type of criticism if they were a state appointed body that could actually control and dictate these types of policies however they aren't, they are a special interest group that can only do what every other group of people in the USA can do - e.g. support policies they believe in, campaign against policies they don't believe in, support people who fight certain legislation in courts and so on.

...snip..
For the record, if you (the person reading this) contribute to the ACLU, you condone this. Randi, by inviting the ACLU's senior staff to his meetings, condones this. And sadly, I (by contributing to Randi) condoned this.

Condone what?

 

[bigred]

You lost me somewhere in there. Where is the ACLU choosing minorities and/or choosing which speech is hateful? What is the problem with them defending free speech even though it may be saying things they don't like? Defending only the things you like is hardly noble.

er where did you get that they are defending free speech even though it may be saying things they don't like?? Let's re-review the quote:

"Take hate speech," he said. "While believing in free speech, we do not believe in or condone speech that attacks minorities."

They are obviously NOT "defending people saying things they don't like" - quite the opposite in fact; they are attacking people saying things they don't like (ie what they call "hate speech").

They make me ill.

 

[BPSCG]

There was a time when I really admired the ACLU and its work.

Then, for a time, I questioned some of its decisions and emphasis, but gave it a the benefit of the doubt because of its past work.

Okay, I hold a similar position to NZA, but not so fast...

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.

"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.

This is not a free speech issue. A public organization like ACLU has the right, even an obligation, to let the public know who speaks for it, and what it stands for. Naturally, every organization has its own internal divisions, but that's why you have board meetings and such - to decide what its policies are going to be. If you don't agree with the policy, persuade the rest of the board that you're right and the policy will get changed. If you can't persuade them, then go along with the policy and refrain from criticizing it. And if the policy really offends you and you see no chance of changing it, resign.

You can't have someone inside the tent pissing all over the place and then telling everyone outside, "I'm pissing inside the tent here..."

Regarding the "hate speech" business: What a buncha jerks.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

er where did you get that they are defending free speech even though it may be saying things they don't like?? Let's re-review the quote:

"Take hate speech," he said. "While believing in free speech, we do not believe in or condone speech that attacks minorities."

They are obviously NOT "defending people saying things they don't like" - quite the opposite in fact; they are attacking people saying things they don't like (ie what they call "hate speech").

They make me ill.

I somewhat confused on your position. The way I read the ACLU quote is that they are FOR free speech, but they don't necessarily agree with the content of that free speech. For example, if you're some hardcore white supremist (oxymoron) Nazi who insists on giving speeches and marching through black neighborhoods (like what happened here in Orlando), the ACLU will defend your right to do that. The ACLU doesn't agree that whites are the master race and that all jews, blacks, and other "mud" races be put in gas chambers ....

Charlie (fight for peace) Monoxide

 

[NoZed Avenger]

You must be really, really old.

Yep.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Okay, I hold a similar position to NZA, but not so fast...
This is not a free speech issue. A public organization like ACLU has the right, even an obligation, to let the public know who speaks for it, and what it stands for.

I don't entirely disagree with this. But can you see the ACLU taking this position if Microsoft implemented these standards?

 

[Cleon]

I don't entirely disagree with this. But can you see the ACLU taking this position if Microsoft implemented these standards?

Er, yes, because the ACLU doesn't have anything to do with private companies like MS. Their sole concern is government.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Er, yes, because the ACLU doesn't have anything to do with private companies like MS. Their sole concern is government.

I'll have to try and free time up to look, but I thought some of their criticism on the provacy/cookie issue was also aimed at corps.

If I have misremembered, then I'll . . . um . . . have them remove this thread and deny I ever made the initial post, or something.

 

[Cleon]

I'll have to try and free time up to look, but I thought some of their criticism on the provacy/cookie issue was also aimed at corps.

I fully admit I know nothing about the "cookie issue" in question--I'm a web developer, so when people start talking about cookies as an intrusion of privacy, I tend to roll my eyes and tune out.

But the ACLU doesn't go after corporations as a rule, their concern is the Bill of Rights. I suppose if government is involved (i.e., a contractor, eminent domain, etc) or the corporation in question is overreaching itself, they might show some concern. But they've never been known to go after corporations for their internal practices or policies.

 

[pgwenthold]

I'll have to try and free time up to look, but I thought some of their criticism on the provacy/cookie issue was also aimed at corps.

If I have misremembered, then I'll . . . um . . . have them remove this thread and deny I ever made the initial post, or something.

I wouldn't blame you. I'd blame the media for misrepresenting the ACLU repeatedly.

Particularly Fox News.

The ACLU knows the difference between government and private entities.

 

[Manny]

I don't entirely disagree with this. But can you see the ACLU taking this position if Microsoft implemented these standards?

Heh. As it happens, it is illegal under federal securities law to impose such a restriction on boards members of public companies. There are other ways to get them to keep their yaps shut, however.

I somewhat confused on your position. The way I read the ACLU quote is that they are FOR free speech, but they don't necessarily agree with the content of that free speech.

If that's what the guy meant than my criticism of him and the ACLU's stance is in error. Seems kind of an odd time to bring it up though.

 

[drkitten]

If that's what the guy meant than my criticism of him and the ACLU's stance is in error. Seems kind of an odd time to bring it up though.

Goodness gracious, have you no sense whatsoever of context?

Here's the full qquote from the news report.

Mr. Romero said it was not unusual for the A.C.L.U. to grapple with conflicting issues involving civil liberties. "Take hate speech," he said. "While believing in free speech, we do not believe in or condone speech that attacks minorities."

He's specifically discussing the difficulties the ACLU is facing involving conflicting issues, and he cites the classic example of supporting speech with which you disagree. (Voltaire? ``I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?")

He specifically acknowledges that the ACLU supports "free speech," while not supporting some of the possible content of free speech, e.g. hate speech or attacks on minorities.

Again, keeping in mind the notion of context:

The board had just rejected a proposal to remove Ms. Kaminer and Michael Meyers, another board member, because the two had publicly criticized Mr. Romero and the board for decisions that they contended violated A.C.L.U. principles and policies.

The same board that you're worried about establishing a gag order at the same meeting refused to gag or punish people for doing what the "order" would have prohibited?

It seems to me to be a completely legitimate resolution. Board members, of any organization, should recognize that they have a responsibility to the organization, and that it violates that responsibility to needlessly wash dirty laundry in public.

 

[Bob Klase]

er where did you get that they are defending free speech even though it may be saying things they don't like?? Let's re-review the quote:

Okay- let's re-review the quote:

"Take hate speech," he said. "While believing in free speech, we do not believe in or condone speech that attacks minorities."

Where did you get that they don't defend free speech unless they believe in or condone it? I think they've defended a lot of people that they don't agree with. Lawyers often represent people that they don't agree with.

They are obviously NOT "defending people saying things they don't like" - quite the opposite in fact; they are attacking people saying things they don't like (ie what they call "hate speech").

Where are they attacking people saying things they don't like? I don't see them "attacking" anyone in that quote, or anything else you've quoted.

 

[Elind]

There was a time when I really admired the ACLU and its work.

Hmmm..and when this thread slows down, please let us know what you think of Amnesty