« on: Today at 11:24:20 am »
Obviously we're getting smarter because we're more depressed.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
ACLU kinda deserved to be fucked with, given how they've been acting lately.
I probably missed something, but I seem to remember the ACLU as always being a bit iffy, to put it kindly.
If they're not pissing somebody off, they're not doing their job. I'm not aware of them doing anything overtly contrary to their mission recently. But I probably missed something.
Recently, the ACLU board again considered censoring its members, weighing new rules that would prohibit them from publicly criticizing the ACLU. This startling proposal was the culmination of a bitter internal battle over the organization's integrity and fidelity to principle that has spilled out into the press. According to ACLU leaders, some board members were abusing their right to speak.
But this embarrassing episode is part of a pattern. In the last two years, under the leadership of Executive Director Anthony Romero and President Nadine Strossen, the ACLU has repeatedly been caught practicing the opposite of what it preaches.
In July 2004, the board learned that Romero had quietly agreed to screen the organization's employees against terrorist "watch lists" -- the same lists the ACLU has condemned -- in order to qualify as an officially approved charity for federal employees. Strossen characterized Romero's action as "clever," but it was quickly rescinded when it was reported by the New York Times.
This report was followed by Romero's admission that early in his tenure at the ACLU, he had privately advised the Ford Foundation to "parrot" the Patriot Act in formulating controversial new restrictions on the speech of its grantees -- restrictions Romero then quietly accepted on the ACLU's behalf as well. (Strossen supported Romero's action, which was initially approved by the board but subsequently narrowly rejected.)
More recently, Romero was caught trying to impose a very broad confidentiality agreement and technology rules on ACLU employees, similar to workplace rules that the ACLU officially opposes. Like the proposal governing board members' rights to speak, the agreements nearly imposed on the staff (but withdrawn after they became public,) included a virtual gag rule; they also would have required the staff to acknowledge that all their communications on ACLU systems were subject to surveillance. Strossen defended these proposals, bizarrely noting her "presumption" that they "facilitate the ACLU's commitment to both privacy and free speech."
I figured you had actually sourced that answer. Sounded plenty legit.
The bones of your slain foes.
A sword and shield.