The ACLU Is No Longer Fit For Purpose

I No Longer Support This Organization

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has long been regarded as a champion of civil liberties and individual rights in the United States. However, in recent years, there has been growing concern over the organization's apparent retreat from its traditional defense of the First Amendment. This retreat is well-documented, as the ACLU has chosen not to defend the First Amendment rights of pro-life pregnancy centers or small religious businesses. This departure from its historical stance on free speech has raised questions about the organization's commitment to protecting the rights of all individuals, regardless of their viewpoints.

Furthermore, the ACLU's shift away from defending religious freedom is another cause for concern. While the organization was once known for its vigorous defense of religious liberties, it has seemingly abandoned this position. This change has disappointed many who had looked to the ACLU as a reliable advocate for the protection of religious rights in America.

In a leaked internal memo, the ACLU's stance on free speech becomes even more disheartening. The memo suggests that the organization believes free speech that denigrates "marginalized groups" should not be defended. This position has drawn criticism from those who argue that protecting free speech, even when it is controversial or offensive, is essential to maintaining a robust democracy and ensuring the free exchange of ideas.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the ACLU's recent actions is its abandonment of the right to due process. As an organization founded to assist the powerless, this departure from its founding ideals is deeply concerning. Due process is a fundamental right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, and the ACLU's failure to defend it raises questions about its commitment to protecting the rights of all individuals, especially those who are most vulnerable in society.

Things were much different in the beginning. The ACLU’s inception stems from the passage of the Espionage Act of 1917. During that time, the Russian Revolution was inciting fear in the U.S. over communism’s spread, and resistance to the draft was also causing government concern.

The Espionage Act outlawed certain forms of speech, including comments deemed disloyal to the United States government.

Eugene Debs, for example, was sentenced to 10 years in prison under the Espionage Act after he spoke at a rally for peaceful workers telling them they were “fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder.”

Likewise, in 1919, Schenck v. U.S., the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a Socialist Party member after he sent anti-war leaflets to men across the country.

In 1969, the ACLU defended the seemingly undefendable when they fought for the Ku Klux Klan’s right to free speech in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

When Ku Klux Klan member Clarence Brandenburg addressed a rally held in Ohio, he made mention of the possibility of “revenge” against Jewish and Black individuals. This resulted in his conviction for violating the state’s Criminal Syndicalism law, which prohibited speech that sought to “advocate…the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform.”

This conviction earned Brandenburg a 10-year prison sentence.

With the ACLU by his side, he challenged the Ohio law at the Supreme Court, which resulted in a reversal of his conviction. The Supreme Court ruled that he could be punished only in an instance “where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

In the late 1970s, when neo-Nazis wanted to march through Skokie, Illinois, where many Holocaust survivors resided, the ACLU defended the group’s First Amendment rights, despite agreeing with most everyone that their beliefs were deplorable.

Former ACLU employees are concerned about the contemporary drift in the organization’s activities.

In fact, David Goldberger, the Jewish attorney who defended the free speech rights of Nazis on behalf of the ACLU, fears that “Liberals are leaving the First Amendment behind.”

In conclusion, the ACLU's retreat from its historical defense of the First Amendment, religious freedom, and due process is a cause for concern. As an organization that has played a crucial role in safeguarding civil liberties, its departure from these principles raises questions about its mission and its dedication to upholding the rights of all individuals.

And this is why I no longer support them.