A leftover from the weekend that's important enough to highlight, in my view. One of the peculiarities of our time is that an increasing number of activists on the hard Left defend or justify violent and destructive acts as forms of free speech, while assailing "hateful" speech as a dangerous form of violence. Rioting and looting is excused in some quarters, as arguments in favor of curtailing free speech become more mainstream. For "progress," you see.
Another alarming element of these trends is that some of the liberal institutions that have long championed the First Amendment as sacrosanct are wavering over, or even abandoning, long-held principles in order to align with the illiberal leftist values of the current woke age. Journalists, especially younger ones in elite newsrooms, too often represent the vanguard of hostility on this front, eagerly seeking to punish "wrong" thinking (or even editorial decisions to platform "wrong" thinking). Similarly, at the ACLU – which for decades acted as a prominent and unwavering bastion of First Amendment absolutism – neo-"progressive" values are butting up against fundamental principles, and some speech advocates fear that the former priority is winning. The New York Times reports on a disturbing drift that has evidently been underway for years:
It was supposed to be the celebration of a grand career, as the American Civil Liberties Union presented a prestigious award to the longtime lawyer David Goldberger. He had argued one of its most famous cases, defending the free speech rights of Nazis in the 1970s to march in Skokie, Ill., home to many Holocaust survivors. Mr. Goldberger, now 79, adored the A.C.L.U. But at his celebratory luncheon in 2017, he listened to one speaker after another and felt a growing unease. A law professor argued that the free speech rights of the far right were not worthy of defense by the A.C.L.U. and that Black people experienced offensive speech far more viscerally than white allies. In the hallway outside, an A.C.L.U. official argued it was perfectly legitimate for his lawyers to decline to defend hate speech. Mr. Goldberger, a Jew who defended the free speech of those whose views he found repugnant, felt profoundly discouraged. “I got the sense it was more important for A.C.L.U. staff to identify with clients and progressive causes than to stand on principle,” he said in a recent interview. “Liberals are leaving the First Amendment behind.”
The story goes on to highlight the organization's undeniable moves to de-emphasize a core founding value:
...Its national and state staff members debate, often hotly, whether defense of speech conflicts with advocacy for a growing number of progressive causes, including voting rights, reparations, transgender rights and defunding the police. Those debates mirror those of the larger culture, where a belief in the centrality of free speech to American democracy contends with ever more forceful progressive arguments that hate speech is a form of psychological and even physical violence. These conflicts are unsettling to many of the crusading lawyers who helped build the A.C.L.U. The organization, said its former director Ira Glasser, risks surrendering its original and unique mission in pursuit of progressive glory. “There are a lot of organizations fighting eloquently for racial justice and immigrant rights,” Mr. Glasser said. “But there’s only one A.C.L.U. that is a content-neutral defender of free speech. I fear we’re in danger of losing that.” ... One hears markedly less from the A.C.L.U. about free speech nowadays. Its annual reports from 2016 to 2019 highlight its role as a leader in the resistance against President Donald J. Trump. But the words “First Amendment” or “free speech” cannot be found. Nor do those reports mention colleges and universities, where the most volatile speech battles often play out. Since Mr. Trump’s election, the A.C.L.U. budget has nearly tripled to more than $300 million as its corps of lawyers doubled. The same number of lawyers — four — specialize in free speech as a decade ago.
"Some A.C.L.U. lawyers and staff members argue that the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and the press — as well as freedom of religion, assembly and petitioning the government — is more often a tool of the powerful than the oppressed," the piece explains. If the ACLU decides that racial considerations and power dynamics are more important than free speech, or that the First Amendment is actually a problem, it is irreparably lost. After the infamous tragedy that occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017, the ACLU's leadership – besieged by furious leftists – announced a policy shift:
The A.C.L.U. unfurled new guidelines that suggested lawyers should balance taking a free speech case representing right-wing groups whose “values are contrary to our values” against the potential such a case might give “offense to marginalized groups.” A.C.L.U. leaders asserted that nothing substantive had changed. “We should recognize the cost to our allies but we are committed to represent those whose views we regard as repugnant,” Mr. Cole said in an interview with The New York Times. But longtime free speech advocates like Floyd Abrams, perhaps the nation’s leading private First Amendment lawyer, disagreed. The new guidelines left him aghast. “The last thing they should be thinking about in a case is which ideological side profits,” he said. “The A.C.L.U. that used to exist would have said exactly the opposite.”
The story is lengthy and worth the read. It documents how the ACLU has made some of its leaders and members uncomfortable with highly partisan actions boosting Stacey Abrams and attacking Brett Kavanaugh. It recounts internal battles in which some staffers accused the organization of being endemically racist, a common occurrence within left-leaning institutions of late. And it demonstrates how the ACLU's erstwhile robust support for free speech on college campuses and due process for the accused have receded as leftist commitment to those principles has declined. This anecdote, complete with a particularly pungent quote, illustrates how growing elements of the radical Left openly abhor free speech and seek to "win" and enforce "progress" by squelching it:
Claire Gastanaga, then the executive director of the A.C.L.U. chapter in Virginia, drove to the College of William & Mary to talk about free speech. One of her board members had resigned after Charlottesville, tweeting, “When a free speech claim is the only thing standing in the way of Nazis killing people, maybe don’t take the case.” Ms. Gastanaga planned to argue that by defending the rights of the objectionable, the A.C.L.U. preserved the rights of all. She walked onstage and dozens of students who proclaimed themselves allied with Black Lives Matter approached with signs. “Good, I like this,” Ms. Gastanaga said. “This illustrates very well ——” Those were the last of her words that could be heard. “A.C.L.U., you protect Hitler, too!” the students chanted, setting up a line that stretched the width of the stage. They stood in front of the stage and Ms. Gastanaga and for half an hour blocked anyone in the audience from approaching and talking with her. She eventually left. “The revolution,” the students chanted, “will not uphold the Constitution.”
The revolution will not uphold the Constitution. They're not kidding. The bedrocks of free expression and speech are falling out of favor on the Left, and are therefore under threat – culturally, and possibly even legally. And one of our society's stalwart liberal First Amendment fortresses appears to be conflicted over whether to defend their values or join the hordes trying to scale the walls.