Already, people who espouse unpopular causes cannot advertise. What made the ACLU
case reprehensible was the change in policy right after the infusion of funds from
the industry.
Doug Henwood wrote:
> Michael Perelman wrote:
>
> >Justin, the ACLU is probably 90% correct (my estimate). I don't
Michael Perelman wrote:
>Justin, the ACLU is probably 90% correct (my estimate). I don't think that we
>are aiming at it. The stand of the representative in Philadelphia
>is terrible.
>The tobacco case was abominable.
Why? Suppose NORML or some other drug-law reform organization had its
ads
I have looked at this link and find the information in it disturbing. I will
write the national ACLU about the matter. If you all are not ACLU
members--and why not?--you should join and write too. You should know that,
as with many affiliate-based groups with a national office, the NO does not
Justin, the ACLU is probably 90% correct (my estimate). I don't think that we
are aiming at it. The stand of the representative in Philadelphia is terrible.
The tobacco case was abominable.
http://www.tobacco.org/News/aclu11.96.html
The above link gives some details about the abrupt change of
