Document
Information
Digital ID
jhp000266-003
UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
Read more about our reproduction and use policy.
I agree.SJtijtfii. Diaiz January 3, 1989 Mrs. Sari Aizley, Executive Director American Civil Liberties Union 3468 Villa Knolls Dirve Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 Dear Sari: I'm very disturbed reading about your stand on the Englestad matter. Perhaps as Southern Nevada Director of the ACLU chapter it's beholden upon you to quote the policy issued by the national office. However, contrary to your thinking that the only issue the Gaming Control Board should investigate is the destruction of records at the Imperial Palace is incorrect in the opinion of many here in our State. The issue that gaming is a privileged license is very valid. I must take exception to the statement that this is just another "freedom of speech" matter. I don't believe the national office understands or accepts the fact that gaming in Nevada _is_ a privileged license. A case in point is that my husband, Lloyd, several years ago was involved in a similar case. It was presented before the County Commission and involved a hotel. Lloyd's complaint was upheld because it was cited that gaming jLs a privileged license in our State. I also note that, in the enclosed article, the ACLU has taken on the representation of the KKK in other parts of the country. Quoting the grand wizard of that organization, "Derogatory terms like nigger, honky, spook and cracker may be used." Can "kike" and other ugly-meaning epithets be far behind? Leaning on the phrase "freedom of speech" is similar to leaning on the phrase "the right to bear arms." Who has the right? The militia? A constitutionally organized police or defense force? Every Tom, Dick or Harry? Is freedom of speech the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre? At this point I have the feeling that the present ACLU is not the ACLU of Eisenhower and Truman, as it braggingly claims to be. I have great problems with supporting an organization that defends those who wish me and mine and others who do not share the same backgrounds with the likes of the KKK, out of the way or dead. Please remove my name from your membership rolls.