The ACLU and Holding the Line on Speech Protections

In the wake of the violence in Charlottesville this week, some are calling on the ACLU to rethink its historic commitment to defending free speech across the political spectrum, regardless of the unpopularity or offensiveness of the message. The best way to ensure an equal voice for disenfranchised groups, it is argued, is for the ACLU to consider power dynamics and historical context when choosing whose First Amendment rights to defend.

I have a hard time with this position. It’s untenable to ask the ACLU to choose which political speech is worth protecting under the law and which isn’t. Free speech is not like housing or education or health care, where law and policy can be doctored to level the playing field; it’s the fundamental bedrock of democracy and civil society.

Even the perception that legal means are being used to amplify some people’s speech and suppress others’ (whether aimed right or left) is politically destabilizing and promotes radicalization. The alt-right, while not members of a historically disenfranchised group, already see themselves as marginalized victims of a liberal establishment. It’s important for the ACLU to maintain its historic stance as nonpartisan defender of civil rights.

Then there is the generalized erosion of public space, leaving us with fewer and fewer neutral forums for demonstration and debate. With private entities such as Twitter and Google blocking content as they please, now is not the time to weaken or bifurcate speech rights.

We should instead focus on, and support, all the ACLU does to promote freedom of expression, voting rights, criminal justice reform, religious freedom and the separation of church and state.