The Volokh Conspiracy - ACLU Considers Firing Board Members for Criticizing ACLU:

The New York Times has the scoop.

UPDATE: One particularly interesting paragraph notes the reaction of Anthony Romero, the ACLU's Executive Director, to the fact that information about ACLU's privacy-threatening fundraising practices was leaked to the press:

Mr. Romero said he was furious about the disclosure and would consider legal recourse. "We are outraged and appalled that this information was stolen from the A.C.L.U.," he said.

I thought the ACLU called this sort of thing "whistleblowing," not "stealing." Or is it stealing when the whistle is blown on the ACLU?

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Ivan Ludmer writes with a critique of this post that I thought I would pass on:

  I was appalled when I read your post about the ACLU, but when I read the article you referenced it looked like you may have misinterpreted some items.
  First, regarding the ACLU considering firing board members, the article says:"...that the subject was added to the committee's agenda at the request of its Oregon affiliate. The committee will then decide whether the entire board should address it over the weekend at its quarterly meeting. "To the best of my knowledge, no current board member supports implementing any such proceedings, and I am aware of many board members who responded by expressing their strong opposition to the
idea," Ms. Strossen wrote. "We will discuss the idea, but I predict
that it will be resoundingly rejected."
  So while the matter may be 'under consideration,' I think your headline is somewhat misleading.
  As regards Mr. Romero's fury, the article is ambiguous as to whether he is furious that those questionable fundraising practices were revealed or that information on all those donors was leaked. It's hard to tell from the passage, but it seems plausible to me that he's
furious because he paid a consultant for work compiling donor
information and that consultant revealed the information collected,
not just the fact he had collected that information.

Unfortunately I don't have time to check this through myself, but to be fair I wanted to post the critique and let readers decide for themselves.

	[Orin Kerr, January 21, 2005 at 1:44am] Trackbacks ACLU Considers Firing Board Members for Criticizing ACLU: The New York Times has the scoop. UPDATE: One particularly interesting paragraph notes the reaction of Anthony Romero, the ACLU's Executive Director, to the fact that information about ACLU's privacy-threatening fundraising practices was leaked to the press: Mr. Romero said he was furious about the disclosure and would consider legal recourse. "We are outraged and appalled that this information was stolen from the A.C.L.U.," he said. I thought the ACLU called this sort of thing "whistleblowing," not "stealing." Or is it stealing when the whistle is blown on the ACLU? ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Ivan Ludmer writes with a critique of this post that I thought I would pass on: I was appalled when I read your post about the ACLU, but when I read the article you referenced it looked like you may have misinterpreted some items. First, regarding the ACLU considering firing board members, the article says:"...that the subject was added to the committee's agenda at the request of its Oregon affiliate. The committee will then decide whether the entire board should address it over the weekend at its quarterly meeting. "To the best of my knowledge, no current board member supports implementing any such proceedings, and I am aware of many board members who responded by expressing their strong opposition to the idea," Ms. Strossen wrote. "We will discuss the idea, but I predict that it will be resoundingly rejected." So while the matter may be 'under consideration,' I think your headline is somewhat misleading. As regards Mr. Romero's fury, the article is ambiguous as to whether he is furious that those questionable fundraising practices were revealed or that information on all those donors was leaked. It's hard to tell from the passage, but it seems plausible to me that he's furious because he paid a consultant for work compiling donor information and that consultant revealed the information collected, not just the fact he had collected that information. Unfortunately I don't have time to check this through myself, but to be fair I wanted to post the critique and let readers decide for themselves.