roundtable: ACLU Position on White

roundtable: ACLU Position on White

ACLU Position on White

Barry Steinhardt (barrys@aclu.org)
Tue, 5 Dec 1995 15:21:19 -0500 

Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 15:21:19 -0500
Message-Id: <199512052021.PAA13571@pipe5.nyc.pipeline.com>
To: roundtable@cni.org
Subject: ACLU Position on White
From: barrys@aclu.org (Barry Steinhardt)

 
-The ACLU's Position on the White Compromise:  
  
The ACLU is opposed to both the Hyde proposal and the White compromise.  
While the White proposal is in many ways less draconian than the Hyde 
proposal, both proposals contain unconstitutional restrictions on online 
free speech and privacy rights. **We are prepared to challenge these 
restrictions in court if they become law.**  
  
The ACLU is now organizing a letter to the House conferees that will be 
delivered late this afternoon, Tuesday, December 5th.  The letter will 
explain in detail why both the Hyde and the White proposals contain 
unconstitutional provisions.  Several civil liberties and media groups have

already agreed to sign on to the letter.  The ACLU will post the letter to 
this and other lists within the next few hours -- any organizations wishing

to sign on should send a message to beeson@aclu.org.  
  
To the Organizer of the Campaign to Stop the Net Censorship Legislation:  
  
Shabbir, as you know, the ACLU in the past has signed on to almost all of 
the alerts for the "Campaign to Stop the Net Censorship Legislation."  We 
have been pleased with the way you have drafted the alerts and accepted 
suggestions from various coalition members for improvement.  However, your 
handling of the last alert is **completely unacceptable** and contrary to 
the way in which public interest coalitions work.  You implied that  that 
the ACLU and EPIC did not respond to your draft when you knew very well 
that we were clearly opposed to the White compromise.  
  
In the middle of the afternoon yesterday, you posted a message indicating 
that you were beginning to draft a new alert in anticipation of the House 
conferee vote on the Hyde and White proposals.  
  
You **immediately** heard back (at 4:38 p.m.) by e-mail from Barry 
Steinhardt, Associate Director of the ACLU, who said:  
  
>What will this alert say with respect to the new White proposal?  
>The ACLU does not wish to be party to any alert which implies support.   
>   
>Barry Steinhardt   
  
You then posted a draft alert at 6:19 **with no information about the White

proposal** and an implicit endorsement.  Your message **ignored** the fact 
that you already knew that the ACLU was opposed to the White proposal.  You

said:  
  
"I will need to hear specifically from EFF, EPIC, ACLU, and CDT before I 
can post this with your name on it.  If I don't hear from you, I'll have to

drop you from the names at the bottom."  
  
You then called Ann Beeson on the phone (about 6:30 p.m.) and she 
reiterated that the ACLU would not sign on to an alert that supported the 
White proposal.  She told you that she would be glad to help with the 
drafting of an acceptable alert but that she would not be able to review 
the alert until Tuesday morning.  You DID NOT indicate that you were 
planning to post a coalition alert before morning.  
  
You did not respond to Barry Steinhardt's message until 11:57 p.m.  You 
said:  
  
"Although the alert I put out does not support White, it might be 
interpreted as that depending on how you read it.  For that reason, I am 
pulling the ACLU's name off of it just to be safe."  
  
Then you posted an alert in the middle of the night that claimed that the 
ACLU had not responded to your draft, and that you did not know where the 
ACLU stood on the issue.  You wrote:  
  
"I've posted the alert.  I've removed the ACLU and EPIC from it.  Since 
they didn't get back to me in time, I can't put them on in good 
conscience."  
  
The concept of a coalition requires a true group consensus before anything 
can be issued in the name of the coalition.  We think that the other 
coalition members, and stop314 list members, would have appreciated knowing

that at least two prominent civil liberties groups in the coalition 
objected to the draft of your alert **before** they signed on to it.  Just 
how many coalition groups on your list actually responded to your draft, 
between 6:19 p.m. and 4:49 a.m. the next morning?  We find it hard to 
believe that the other groups all approved your draft during that time.  
  
While we understand that you were operating under strict time constraints, 
you learned at 7:55 p.m. last night, from CDT's policy post, that we had an

extra day to coordinate because the conferees had postponed their meeting 
until Wednesday.  While we appreciate your ongoing efforts to stop net 
censorship, we hope you will be more careful before claiming to represent a

coalition in the future.  
  
Barry Steinhardt, Associate Director, ACLU, 212-944-9800 x614  
Ann Beeson, William Brennan Fellow, ACLU, 212-944-98800 x788 
 
-- 
Barry Steinhardt         barrys@aclu.org 
Associate Director 
ACLU 
132 West 43 St. New York, N.Y 10036 
212-944-9800 ext 614 (voice) 
212-354-5290 (fax) 
 
 
 
 
- 
Barry Steinhardt         barrys@aclu.org 
Associate Director 
ACLU 
132 West 43 St. New York, N.Y 10036 
212-944-9800 ext 614 (voice) 
212-354-5290 (fax)

[CNI Home Page]