A.C.L.U. Considers Censorship Of Its Board

The New York Times reports the American Civil Liberties Union may 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.

According to the Times, former A.C.L.U. board members were shocked by the proposal and some former board members and A.C.L.U. supporters said the proposal was 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.

[. . .]

Ms. Kaminer and another board member, John C. Brittain, charged that the proposal threatened free speech. "I find it quite appalling that the A.C.L.U. is actively supporting this," Ms. Kaminer told The Sun.

Imagine that, the A.C.L.U. trying to stifle free speech. Whose going to sue the A.C.L.U.?

Comments

[KipEsquire]

This is a red herring of the highest order.

Private associations establishing private rules of decorum for their private members. That is about as far away from "censorship" as is humanly possible.

B.F.D.