ACLU embraces role in defending ‘groups we detest’
Group’s defense of Charlottesville rally highlights challenge of advocating free speech for all without alienating supporters
The American Civil Liberties Union was under severe duress. Hate mail poured in, death threats, and the executive director was spat on. That moment, 40 years ago, fought over a planned rally by a small group of neo-Nazis in Skokie, Ill., would become one of the organization’s most notable cases, and to some, among its finest moments. The ACLU cemented its reputation for fighting for civil liberties, even, or especially, if it meant, in the words of its director at the time, “defending my enemy.”
That philosophy came into renewed focus last week, as the organization went to court to fight for the right of white nationalists to hold a rally at Emancipation Park in Charlottesville, Va.
But the episode is likely to be remembered less for the constitutional principle than for its violent toll: brawls, ugly confrontations and the death of a 32-year-old woman.
“I won’t be a fig leaf for Nazis,” a member of the ACLU of Virginia board, Waldo Jaquith, posted on Twitter, announcing that he was resigning from the organization. Among his parting messages to the organization was, “Don’t defend Nazis to allow them to kill people.”
This year has been a banner one for the civil liberties group, which is expected by some on the left to serve as a legal bulwark against some of the Trump administration’s policies.
Membership in the group has almost quadrupled, and donations online have reached $83 million since the election, when, in a typical period, about $5 million or less might be expected, a spokeswoman for the ACLU, Stacy Sullivan, said.
But the group’s defense of the Charlottesville rally has crystallized a recurring challenge for the organization: How to pursue its First Amendment advocacy, even for hate-based groups, without alienating its supporters.
It has seen a backlash on social media after the violence in Charlottesville. Even Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia asserted that because of the ACLU’s intervention, the rally was unwisely held downtown, where it “became a powder keg.”
Sullivan acknowledged that the organization was aware of “a lot of threats” on social media of people saying they would drop their membership, although neither she nor the group’s executive director, Anthony D. Romero, would provide more details.
With numerous “alt-right” rallies scheduled in the near future, the ACLU faces the question of how to respond to the next case involving a white nationalist rally that local authorities try to block.
Another potential First Amendment showdown in Texas already looms. Citing safety concerns, Texas A&M on Monday canceled a white nationalist rally scheduled for Sept. 11. The rally organizer, Preston Wiginton, told the Texas Tribune he might sue and he might seek the ACLU’s help.
Romero said in an interview this week that the group would remain committed to its free speech advocacy. “This is not a new juncture for the ACLU,” he said. “We have a longstanding history of defending the rights of groups we detest and with whom we fundamentally disagree.”
Even so, in the first months of the Trump presidency, the ACLU seemed to be more cautious about which fights it would embrace. It stayed uncharacteristically quiet when the University of California, Berkeley, canceled speeches by two right-wing writers and provocateurs, Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter, earlier this year. And when a federal judge in April weighed whether Richard Spencer, a leader of the so-called altright, could hold an event at a public university in Alabama, the ACLU was absent from the case.
The civil liberties union’s apparent absence from some of these disputes prompted questions, even criticism, about the organization’s continuing commitment to fighting old-fashioned free speech cases for unpopular clients.
The ACLU has long maintained that defending the First Amendment rights of white supremacists does not only vindicate constitutional rights where they are under attack, but also protects speech rights for all groups. Social justice and equality, the group believes, are best served with more speech, on all sides, and by confronting hateful ideas headon, rather than suppressing them.
But some on the left argue that freedom of speech should not extend to hate speech. Under this view, defending the free speech rights of racists does not, in the long run, strengthen the civil liberties of minority groups.
As future cases involving the free speech rights of white supremacists surface, it remains to be seen how the events in Charlottesville may affect the ACLU’s response.
“The death may make people have second thoughts — I surely hope not,” said David A. Goldberger, a former ACLU lawyer who represented the neo-Nazis in the Skokie case. “This is a real crossroads for the ACLU, and I think it’s going to choose the right road.”