The following was written July 2 and published in the Journal Friday,
August 6:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

@device(postscript)
@make(letter)
@style(indent 5)
305 Memorial Drive
Cambridge, MA 02139
@value(date)
@begin(address)
Letters to the Editor
@b(The Wall Street Journal)
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281
@end(address)

@begin(body, spacing 2)
@greeting(To the Editor:)

ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser's July 2 letter "We Cannot Impose
Prayer on Others" is shamelessly hypocritical.  Criticizing Jay
Sekulow's Rule of Law column, which endorsed allowing students to
initiate prayer at graduations, Glasser preached about the First
Amendment and the ACLU's support for it.  "Free speech, for example,
is protected because the First Amendment prohibits Congress from
passing any laws that abridge what people say or think, no matter how
unpopular their views may be."

But Glasser and the ACLU have mounted an aggressive attack on freedom
of speech in our schools and workplaces, under the guise of fighting
racial and sexual harassment.  The ACLU has endorsed the notion that
speech that is considered to be offensive, even if well-intentioned,
may illegally create an "offensive environment."  Despite the First
Amendment, this notion has been accepted by courts under pressure from
groups like the ACLU.  As a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,
which the ACLU helped pass through Congress, individuals and
businesses are liable for up to $300,000 in damages for failing to
muzzle their employees.  Recently, the ACLU national board moved to a
more extreme position, holding that any speech which offends a
"reasonable woman," regardless of severity, should be punishable under
the law.  "We will dictate the workplace mores of the 1990's," gloated
ACLU attorney Nancy Gertner.  "It will be incredibly traumatic."  In
Massachusetts, the ACLU even distributed a model speech code to
schools and universities.  While an ACLU member, I found that the
organization no longer intervenes to protect civil liberties, except
where an "equality interest" is believed to be at stake.

If freedom of speech means anything, it must mean the right to express
views that are deemed offensive.  Ideas which no one finds offensive
have never needed protection.  The ACLU sees the issues of race and
gender as too important to be discussed freely.  But their importance
is precisely why their discussion must always remain free of control.
In the future, better people may lead the ACLU.  For now, however,
it's "free speech for me, but not for thee."

@end(body)
Sincerely,


Lars Bader
(617) 225-9865

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Gertner was subsequently nominated to be a federal judge, thanks to
Senator Kennedy, which illustrates how sincere his support for freedom
of speech is.