ACLU: Now We Like Speech Codes
By Captain Ed on National Politics
Captain's Quarters
In a development that really plumbs the depth of hypocrisy, the American Civil Liberties Union now wants to impose speech codes on its own board while decrying restrictions on free speech everywhere else. Under new guidelines that the ACLU has taken under serious consideration, directors will be urged to make happy or keep their mouths shut:
<<< 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.
"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. >>>
This comes from the organization that would file a blizzard of lawsuits if any other corporation attempted to enact such a policy. Can anyone imagine the ACLU defending a similar policy at Enron, Global Crossings, or the NSA? Perhaps they would. Susan Herman, a current ACLU board member and a Brooklyn Law School professor, justifies the speech code based on the "fiduciary responsibilities" of the board. Using that logic, any corporation can take action against dissenters and whistleblowers on the basis that their statements might hurt stock prices.
ACLU flacks claim that this entails no punitive measures, but their members aren't buying that explanation. Nat Hentoff, the respected Village Voice reporter and a longtime ACLU member, wondered if Dick Cheney had drawn up the guidelines himself. He also referred to the "guidelines" as nothing more than a gag order intended to suppress dissent. Former ACLU board member Muriel Morisey told the New York Times that the policy constructs a framework for punitive action. After all, if board members do not adhere to these guidelines, at some point action has to be taken or the guidelines themselves are meaningless.
Even if no action is taken, the new instructions make a statement about the organization. The ACLU says by its consideration of this proposal that it cannot withstand dissent, an odd position for an organization that based its existence to protect dissent elsewhere. They seem to say that some dissent is tolerable and others are not, and that the highest authorities hold the privilege of deciding which is which. It's interesting and terribly convenient that they would only apply that philosophy to themselves.
UPDATE: The New York Sun blog, It Shines for All, weighs in with another example of hypocrisy from the New York chapter of the ACLU in 2005:
Hypocrisy is on show in a Manhattan courtroom today. The
New York Civil Liberties Union will argue for the second
day before Judge Richard Berman that the city's subway bag
search policy is an "unjustifiable erosion of the privacy
rights of the American public." Yet take a walk into the
NYCLU's Manhattan headquarters - which it shares with
other organizations - and you'll find a sign warning
visitors that all bags are subject to search.
If you haven't yet checked out ISFA, do so now and tell Daniel Freedman that CQ says hello. It's one of the best media-based blogs and underscores The Sun's commitment to the blogosphere.
UPDATE II: The Influence Peddler waxes nostalgic for 1994.
influencepeddler.blogspot.com
captainsquartersblog.com
nytimes.com
shinesforall.com
shinesforall.com |
