ACLU modifies free speech defense limit

In the wake of violence at the Charlottesville's white supremacy rally, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has modified it's blanket endorsement for protection of the right to free-speech.

Founded in 1920, with Helen Keller as one of its founders, the ACLU is the guardian of the Constitution's guarantees of liberty, fighting in the courts and legislatures to, e.g. oppose Trump's Muslim ban, protect voting rights and LGBTQ rights;  but it has also engaged in the controversial defense of the rights of neo-Nazis to hold a protest march in Skokie, Illinois in the 1970s.  It's mission has always been to protect free speech, even when the content is repugnant.

Even First Amendment purists accept some exceptions, famously exemplified as not allowing one to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater.   It's a bit more complicated than that today, as explained by vox.com's Dara Lind.  Unlike the 1970s neo-Nazi rallies, today there is more divisiveness, more flashpoint anger, more guns, more readiness to use guns.  It's a much more explosive situation.

Nevertheless, the ACLU had sued the City of Charlottesville for the right of the "Unite the Right" organizers to hold their rally in the downtown area.  Now that it has resulted in such violence, the ACLU is rethinking it's position -- or at least the practical interpretation of its position.

Executive Director Anthony Romero has announced that the ACLU will no longer defend free speech rallies where participants plan to carry loaded firearms.  This is consistent with former ACLU director Nadine Strosser: "Government may not censor speech because of its viewpoint, but it may censor speech because of its effects."

Essentially, what this compromise points up is the difficulty of resolving a conflict between two guaranteed rights.  Here it's the right to free speech vs the right to bear arms, as that right has been interpreted (incorrectly, in my opinion) by a divided Supreme Court.  (Forgive a moment of levity, put perhaps we could say there was a misspelling in the Second Amendment.   The founders really meant "the right to bare arms.")

But what if a group applying for a rally permit objects and insists that they be allowed to carry arms.   Romero has a ready answer for that:   "Well, we don't have to represent them.   They can find somebody else."   In other words, the ACLU is not the police;  they're just lawyers.

But very powerful lawyers, who have successfully argued cases before the Supreme Court, as well as every-day kinds of defense of liberty and rights.  It's a worthy cause to support.

Ralph