The Atlantic[0][1] has run a number of articles about the ACLU's changing values, and refusal to grapple critically with more authoritarian voices in the halls of power. There was also a New Republic article[2] discussing strife within the ACLU itself; "Finally, there are those within the ACLU who scoff at the First Amendment completely, arguing that it is “disproportionately enjoyed by people of power and privilege” and therefore, presumably, of little or no value to others. And Powell reports that some ACLU lawyers believe free speech (presumably meaning disagreement with the organization’s new direction) is now being suppressed within the organization itself."

[0]: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/aclu-devos...

[1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/aclu-johnn...

[2]: https://newrepublic.com/article/163073/first-amendment-fire

> Finally, there are those within the ACLU who scoff at the First Amendment completely, arguing that it is “disproportionately enjoyed by people of power and privilege” and therefore, presumably, of little or no value to others.

The thing about the First Amendment, as it is now interpreted, is that it's a bit like how the law bars rich and poor alike from sleeping on park benches and under bridges. The speech of the privileged is tremendously more powerful than the speech of the marginalized. Allowing the powerful to say any old thing without fear of consequence poses a direct threat of harm to marginalized groups. Therefore, an absolute right to free speech is more threatening to the marginalized than a more measured approach wherein the right of the privileged to spew hate is far less defensible.

I suggest you read Andy Wingo's essay on this subject and let it really sink in: https://www.wingolog.org/archives/2017/09/04/the-hardest-thi...

> For example, as an immigrant to France, speech against immigrants in France is not simply an abstract topic to me. It means that my existence does not have the same value as someone that was born there.

Yes, the problem with free speech is people might advocate immigration policies other than "open borders for all". That cannot be permitted - France belongs to everyone.

Fortunately we have heroes such as Andy Wingo, that immigrate to France, then work to exclude the natives from employment if they suspect those natives don't want to share their homeland with even more immigrants.

Thus a virtuous cycle is born - the more immigrants that come, the more marginalized the closed-borders fascists become.

Unfortunately, lots of these public interest organizations are staffed with a new generation of lawyers who don’t believe in the old ways. My friend works at one such organization and was grumbling to me about young lawyers who protested representing a client who was undoubtedly within the scope of the organization’s mission, but who they didn’t like for unrelated reasons. (Details intentionally fuzzy to avoid outing anyone.)

There is a major ideological gap between the Boomer and Gen X liberals and the Zoomers on this front. The former were focused on craving out a space for pluralism in a society where the elite institutions were controlled by religious conservatives. The Zoomers grew up in a world where the religious conservatives have mostly been driven out of the elite institutions. They wish to use those institutions to advance their own moral ideology.

This covers the ACLU specifically: https://nypost.com/2022/01/31/ex-aclu-head-ira-glasser-slams...

This article isn’t directly relevant to your point, but covers some of the culture clash: https://theintercept.com/2022/06/13/progressive-organizing-i...

> There is a major ideological gap between the Boomer and Gen X liberals and the Zoomers on this front. The former were focused on craving out a space for pluralism in a society where the elite institutions were controlled by religious conservatives. The Zoomers grew up in a world where the religious conservatives have mostly been driven out of the elite institutions. They wish to use those institutions to advance their own moral ideology.

I've been getting those vibes too. Preach tolerance when oppressed, and oppression when in control.

I’d say it’s more tolerance or pluralism versus universalism. Neither Christian conservatives nor woke progressives are deliberately trying to “oppress” anyone. Both believe in a universal morality, and believe that the world would be better if society operated according to their moral principles. And both are willing to use institutions and social and legal coercion to get people to embrace their ideology. (I don’t mean to characterize either side pejoratively. There’s an internal logic to both of you start from the assumptions they believe to be true.)

There's a nice article and discussion about the ACLU's sad decline at the below link.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31329247

“Stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on.”

That’s Chase Strangio, part of ACLU leadership, fighting to ban a book she doesn’t like: https://www.iwf.org/2020/11/16/some-in-aclu-have-new-cause-b...

You might object that the ACLU also fights against book bans, and that Strangio wasn’t necessarily expressing official ACLU policy, and those would be good points. But the ACLU tolerates this kind of rhetoric and keeps this individual in a prominent position, representing the organization. There are other examples.

Even if you don’t like the book in question, surely the old ACLU, the one I used to support, would have no truck with book banning and book banners.

Imagine the ACLU and tolerating people expressing opinions they disagree with.

> “Stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on.”

> That’s Chase Strangio, part of ACLU leadership, fighting to ban a book she doesn’t like: https://www.iwf.org/2020/11/16/some-in-aclu-have-new-cause-b...

It's worth noting here that the ACLU seems to have literally bought nearly all the online ad space on the New York Times over the past several weeks (at least), to pronounce in 72pt bold letters that you should support them to fight "book bans."

> The ACLU has a track record of defending the rights of the unfavorable, even irredeemable. Are there examples that lump them in with this nonsense?

This is just the first link that popped up, but they're starting to at least back away from their track record:

https://reason.com/2020/12/20/would-the-aclu-still-defend-na...

> Retired since 2001, [Former ACLU Executive Director Ira] Glasser says he's worried about the future of both free expression and the organizations that defend it. In 2018, a leaked ACLU memo offered guidelines for case selection that retreated from the group's decadeslong content-neutral stance, citing as a reason to decline a case "the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values." Glasser fears that, by becoming more political and less absolutist when it comes to defending speech, the ACLU might be shrugging off its hard-won legacy.