<p>Much like Vegas, what happens in the ACLU, stays in the ACLU:
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/us/18aclu.html?th&emc=th[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/18/us/18aclu.html?th&emc=th</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/us/19aclu.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/us/19aclu.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin</a></p>
<p>–civil liberties, what a concept:</p>
<p>Oh the irony of it all :D</p>
<p>yes, after reading the ENTIRE article, to see that it was a suggestion by a committee, and is being discussed and not just voted on down party lines</p>
<p>what a concept, discussing things openly, and fairly</p>
<p>“discussing things openly, and fairly”</p>
<p>Yes, but what theyre “discussing” is whether or not there will be any discussion at all. Get it? That it is at issue amongst those ideologically dedicated to the presumption of civil liberties (a very good thing) is amazing, all things considered (that’s copyrighted by NPRwatch it babe!).</p>
<p>FS,</p>
<p>Though it is silly for an organization that supposedly upholds liberties to be censoring its members, it’s not really a breach of anyone’s liberties for a private organization to censor its members. </p>
<p>Unless of course the ACLU receives significant funding from the fed or a state gov’t, in which case we may find things get complicated. Even then, I doubt that SCOTUS would have anything to say other than, “private organization, 'nuff said.”</p>
<p>Sad though. It’s really too bad that that ACLU can’t hold itself to a better standard.</p>
<p>Misspelled ‘their’?</p>
<p>It’s a shame what’s become of the ACLU, becuase if we ever needed a civil liberities watchdog, we need it now. However, the ACLU isn’t up to the task anymore and seemingly pick fights that are really unworthy of the moniker.</p>
<p>"One of the provisions said, “a director may publicly disagree with an A.C.L.U. policy position, but may not criticize the A.C.L.U. board and staff.”</p>
<p>Another said, “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.”"</p>
<p>This is about <em>showing</em> solidarity as an organization, not stifling debate or disagreement within itself. The proposals explicitly say that a director can publicly disagree with policy! Further, the quoted ALCU representatives make it very very clear that they’ve voted so far to continue discussing it, not to endorse the proposals. I’m guessing that they’re eventually struck down, even though they allow public disagreement with ACLU policy.</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Didn’t mean to offend…I’m sure you didn’t either;)</p>
<p>
Lay off the thesaurus and learn a bit of grammar, eh?</p>
<p>UCLAri: Yes and no. The S. Ct. has allowed for substantial interference with the operations of private organisations, even if they do not receive gov’t funding. See the Jaycees case (came up out of Minnesota). Censorship of members could, depending on the Court, constitute an impermissible breach of First Amendment rights. (Yes, there are some who will elevate freedom of speech above freedom of association/assembly, but such is life.)</p>
<p>^ That maybe so, but its still wrong. The ACLU is a private organization and members join voluntarily. No one is forcing them to do so. If they do not like the regulations, they are free to leave. The SC has made several rulings that infringe on freedom. This isn’t the first one.</p>
<p>The Jaycees are also a private organisation, but it didn’t stop the S. Ct. </p>
<p>I think, however, that the irony speaks for itself and does more than a court ruling would. :p</p>
<p>Yes, well, SCOTUS has ruled as such, but it’s still fairly rare as far as I’ve noticed. At least Volokh seems to suggest that it’s not overwhelmingly common and/or constitutionally argued. </p>
<p>iloveagoodbrew,</p>
<p>The SCOTUS is as the SCOTUS does. The joys of common law, eh?</p>
<p>The joys of having an active government 
What isn’t regulated in this country? I worked at a gift store last year and even some of the gifts had federal warning levels. So ridiculous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Live abroad if you want to see regulation. :p</p>
<p>HK, Norway, Switz, Singapore, Lux, Ireland and Sweden (just kidding) are pretty unregulated, no?</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>Maybe I’ve lived in Japan too long, but I can’t spot sarcasm like I used to.</p>
<p>Sad.</p>
<p>I think all of Europe and Asia is more regulated than the US. Probably the least regulated country in the world (that is really a functional state) is Papua New Guinea.</p>
<p>No I am serious…other than Sweden, I heard those countries have fairly free economies. So I assumed they are less regulated. HK and Ireland especially. In Switz I hear you don’t have to pay all income taxes or something to that effect.</p>
<p>The Swiss most definitely have a (graduated) income tax. There’s little centralized taxation, but the cantons can levy fairly hefty capital gains taxes.</p>
<p>Hell, the “capital gains tax on real estate transactions averages 18%, and a capital transfer tax on real estate transactions averages 4%.”</p>
<p>Plus, define “free economy.” And remember that you have to include both micro and macroeconomic cases. I don’t think that any macroeconomies are truly free of regulation (tariffs are still a powerful tool.)</p>