Lerner (presumably) speaks out

[Nathan Newman]

----- Original Message -----
From: "LouPaulsen" <LouPaulsen at attbi.com>
>But did you and they attack ANSWER as anti-semites in the pages of the New
>York Times??  Lerner has been waging a campaign against ANSWER, not just
>criticizing ANSWER.  The Joint Statement talks about "public attacks" and
>"working to discredit," NOT about "criticizing", "dissent", etc.  I wonder
>how many times I will have to write that and explain the difference?  If we
>do a joint action with UFPJ here in Chicago, I hereby agree in advance not
>to nominate anyone as a speaker who has libelled UFPJ in the pages of the
>Chicago Tribune.

So if the WWP has waged a campaign against someone participating in antiwar
movements, their speakers can be barred?

"George Soros's Human Rights Watch upholds Jefferson's legacy of deceit,
murder and plunder for the ruling class of the 21st century." Workers World
(August 2001)

or just more broadly:

"the Democratic leaders' main motivation was to serve the interests of the
capitalist ruling class." Workers World (Aug. 2000)

The whole "no one can condemn rally organizers" means that anytime a major
Democratic Party Congressman or local club gets involved in a protest, any
group that has condemned the Dems would be barred under such rules.

If we want to go down the road of saying that any rally organizer is
justified in barring any speaker who has criticized them or their
organization in the past, most leftwing groups will be justifiably barred
from speaking anytime a labor union or Democratic Party official is
involved.

-- Nathan Newman