Read this article by Jonathan Edman, on Kennesaw State University's Sentinel website. (Use BugMeNot if you need to login.)

With the constant complaining we hear from folks like the Religious Right about how "liberal" and "activist" the ACLU is, it's always nice to see someone stand up and point out the obvious: the ACLU is on everybody's side, because they'll fight for literally anyone whose civil liberties are in jeopardy.

Mr. Edman relates the story of the National Socialist Party of America — that's the American Nazi Party — and their proposed march in Skokie, Illinois in 1977. When the town, which had a sizable Jewish population (including many whose lives were directly affected by the Holocaust), refused to grant permission to the Nazis, the ACLU — including then-leader and Holocaust survivor Aryeh Neier, and David Goldberger, the Jewish lead attorney on the case — jumped in and successfully defended the Nazis' right to march. As Jonathan Edman says:

But why did the ACLU come to the defense of the NSPA? Were Neier and Goldberger self-loathing Nazi sympathizers? Did the ACLU believe that National Socialism was the best answer for America? Had fear of McCarthyism caused the ACLU to feel the need to prove they were as right wing as the Führer himself?

No. The ACLU jumped into this fight on the side of the Nazis because of the principle at stake. Our first Amendment rights are very clear. We have the right to say what we want, regardless of how distasteful or unpopular it may be. There are clearly established limits to what constitutes "protected speech" and the ACLU rightly believed that the NSPA's demonstration very clearly fell into the "protected" category.

It's not about agreeing with what someone else has to say. It's about agreeing that, if you want the right to express your opinions and beliefs, then everyone else must have that right, too. Yes, the thoughts that others express may offend you, disgust you, or even inspire hatred in you...but their rights to express those thoughts cannot be compromised. The instant you allow limits on the freedoms of your fellow citizens, you are opening the door to limitation of your own freedoms.

The ACLU understands this, and they fight for anybody whose Constitutionally protected rights are threatened; because when you start picking and choosing whose civil liberties to protect, you no longer live in a truly free society.

So opposing the existence of the ACLU on a general basis, or complaining about them, or suing them, or whatever, is genuinely stupid — and we will go on the record saying that anyone who does so is a fucking idiot. You can disagree with them on specific issues, you can argue about whether a particular practice falls under the rubric of Constitutionally protected freedoms, you can even argue against the specific views held by the ACLU's clients — but if you really think the ACLU itself is a "bad" thing, you don't deserve the freedoms they're trying to protect.

Doesn't the NSPA espouse violence? I accept all that the ACLU does to protect the greater good, but in this case they become more of an enabler (in my opinion). Don't get me wrong, I see why the ACLU got involved and I support that reasoning 100%. My love of the ACLU is not unconditional. People have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. The NSPA hurts other people.

We don't always agree with the ACLU, and we don't blindly accept everything that they do, but we do support their overarching goals — protecting the civil liberties of all people.

As far as the NSPA, we agree that they are an abhorrent group of hatemongers. But, in this case, the ACLU was arguing in favor of their First Amendment rights — their right to celebrate their beliefs via their march, not their right to perpetrate any of the violence that they espouse. Do groups like the NSPA have a right to practice the hate that they preach? Hell, no. But they do have the right to preach it. Again, if we start picking and choosing whose rights to protect, we end up tossing all objectivity out the window.