Hypocrisy Unravelling At The ACLU

Posted on June 23, 2006

Natt Hentoff, former member of the ACLU’s national board, wrote a very critical editorial in USA Today where he revealed many details of the hypocrisy the ACLU are practicing and how they are trying to censor the speech of their own members in public. This editorial prompted the President of the ACLU, Nadine Strossen, to write her own editorial defending the practices.

Now another former member and vice president
of ACLU board of directors, Michael Meyers, has put up an editorial in response to Nadine’s. His editorial reveals even more of the hypocrisy going on inside the ACLU.

But Strossen did not reveal how such restrictions have interfered with the board’s oversight and governance of the American Civil Liberties Union, or how they conflict with the ACLU’s own bylaws that now encourage “unity without uniformity.”

Strossen also didn’t respond to what commentary writer Nat Hentoff reported in terms of the censorship underway, much less reveal the additional information that directors are obliged to refer all media calls they get to the ACLU press office, whose staff decides which board members speak to the news media and are provided “talking points” (”Muzzled at the ACLU,” The Forum, June 14).

Nor does Strossen say directors may not even ask questions of Executive Director Anthony Romero without a vote of the executive committee as to whether the director’s questions are suitable.

And, of course, Strossen does not share that Romero, supposedly concerned about leaks to the news media, also announced a policy of monitoring employees’ e-mails, and he tried to impose on all employees an official secrets policy that swept far beyond the ordinary duty of care for truly classified information. Neither did she say she and Romero have repeatedly either delayed or kept from directors altogether critical information that they need to govern.

She forgot to say that Romero informs all committee appointments, including the composition of the committee Strossen appointed that has proposed further restrictions on board members’ public and internal speech, or that neither she nor Romero ever voiced disagreement with the committee’s proposals when they were vetted at the group’s executive committee meeting last January.

How can censorship — criticized by the ACLU when practiced by government — be anything other than hypocrisy on its part and a detriment to the ACLU’s mission as a champion and guardian of free speech and liberty?

Make sure to read the whole thing.

» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, News