Mediaboss Marketing

To the Editor:

As a former staff lawyer for the New York Civil Liberties Union who, as a civil rights lawyer since then, has concentrated on First Amendment cases, I do not take threats to free speech lightly. But restrictions on speech raise issues that are more complicated than your article implies.

Yes, hate speech is generally protected by the Constitution, but so is equality, and hate speech can often make a mockery of equal rights. What the critics call an abandonment of A.C.L.U.s principles reflects, in fact, a growing awareness of many within the A.C.L.U. that speech and equality are sometimes in conflict, and that context matters.

The point is illustrated by the recent controversy over attempts by college students to block Ann Coulter, Milo Yiannopolis and Charles Murray from speaking on their campuses. While the administrators who ran the college bemoaned threats to academic freedom, and liberal critics charged the students with censorship of views they didnt like, the students recognized what it meant to vulnerable students whose lives on predominantly white, elite campuses were often a daily struggle to be targeted by such unrestrained bigotry. They understood as well that even in a place devoted to the free exchange of ideas, little was lost by not hearing Ann Coulter once again say of Muslims, We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

What students and, now, many within the A.C.L.U. have recognized is that, whether or not speech is protected by the First Amendment, there are some times and some places where it should not be heard.

Alan LevineMiami Beach

To the Editor:

The conflicts within the A.C.L.U. may help us clarify what free speech requires in the 21st century. The A.C.L.U. has supported the First Amendment rights of some very bad people for years, but it is a guardian of free speech, not a law enforcement agency. It fought for the right of far-right groups to parade in downtown Charlottesville, Va., but deserves no blame for the failure of the F.B.I. and the local Virginia authorities to stop the violence.

Still, the A.C.L.U. is and was far from perfect. Neither your news story nor Michelle Goldbergs column (The A.C.L.U. Must Defend Awful Speech, June 8) mention the organizations most egregious failures. In the name of national security, it hesitated to defend Japanese Americans during World War II and all too often refused to take cases of Communists and other controversial figures during the McCarthy era. Did its delinquency contribute to the most serious episodes of political repression in American history? Perhaps.

Its current confusion simply illustrates how complicated protecting our freedom can be. This is all the more the case in a Twitter-sphere, where nuanced arguments cannot be made. I plan to renew my membership right now.

Read the rest here:
Opinion | Conflicts Within the A.C.L.U. Over Free Speech and Racial Justice - The New York Times