The head of the ACLU from the 1970s to 2001 says he doesn't think the ACLU of today would have taken the cases that made them famous. (See "Mighty Ira" a documentary on him.)

The ACLU caving to political donors under new executive directors in the Obama years isn't a nothingburger to lawyers like me who looked up to them.

You're missing the issue.

They aren't ignoring Free Speech cases. They are actively fighting against them.

Sometimes rights conflict with one another.

Which civil right is diminished by someone's offensive speech?

There are many ways this can occur. Think of intimidating, racist language being used to discourage minorities from voting, for example. Or a public official whose expression of obnoxious views about women prevents female employees from feeling secure in the workplace.

The overall tone of the comments here seems to regard speech as an obvious, unadulterated good. I think the reality is actually much more complex.

Nobody here is pretending all speech is good.

The point many people here have is that if you only defend non-offensive speech, you’re not for freedom of speech at all. Nowhere on earth bans what they consider non-controversial, inoffensive speech.

All of this was well understood in, say, 1975. The tension you're describing is why the ACLU's hardline stance on speech and the rights of the accused has always been controversial and deeply unpopular in some circles. Without putting too fine a point on it: that's literally what made them the ACLU.

The article uses charlottesville as an example where their actions to guarantee free speech ended up inciting violence and got someone killed. But that's always been the line right and hindsight is 20/20

> speech ... killed

I’m not familiar with the incident (save it, don’t care), but I can promise you that no honest coroner has ever given “free speech” as a cause of death.

It's commonly called "stochastic terrorism".

charlottesville was a pretty consequential event politically, which also result in a death.

this is not the first dismissive comment I've had on HN of people showing a disregard for knowledge & literally not caring to know the issue they comment on. both instances i've participated in involved race which is telling to me imho. Seems to go against the ideals of this forum.

I'm no trying to argue either way just point out the example in the article. Personally I lean more towards free speech at all costs.

Really? What was the race of the person who died? What was the race of the person who killed them?

If you're making the case that protests should not be allowed because sometimes violence occurs, then no protests would ever be allowed.

I'm no arguing either way - though personally I lean towards unrestricted speech at all costs. But just giving the example in the article.

The problem is this sort of logic can be applied to any position. You can always cherry-pick an example of someone with views that you don't like engaging in violence, and then use that to justify silencing anyone else that holds similar views on the grounds that it "may lead to violence".

Of course, the people who make these types of arguments never apply them consistently. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that someone still talking about a car accident in Charlottesville four years ago, while not mentioning the numerous murders, assaults, arsons, and other crimes committed by BLM activists, is someone that is genuinely concerned about "inciting violence".

The low hanging fruit answer: taking up the defense of the KKK could free up resources for the organization to actively infringe on the rights of others, either through direct violence and intimidation, spread of hate speech materials, or allowing political spending on issues with further its white supremacist agenda.

Can you please expand on that?