@idoubtit Statements like this will always make the ACLU appear as a fringe group (or worse) to many Americans. But remember, this is the group that defended the rights of nazis to hold a demonstartion in Skokie, Illinois in 1977. After that I never thought much of them, and really nothing has happened in the years since to improve my opinion of them. So, this statement is not at all out of character for them.

I have never thought that the free=speech absoluteists are grounded in reality. As far as I can tell, their thinking is, if you put restrictions on free speech for anyone (including speech you don't like) then someone else can put restrictions on speech you do like. But what they don't get is that the U.S. Constitution is terribly ineffective at preventing people from putting blocks on speech you may like - for example notice all the places where bans are being imposed on textbooks and library books in schools. Those are clearly unconstitutional if you take the constitution at face value, but we don't do that in this country and have never done that. So what the ACLU is proposing is a "we'll play fair and you play fair" strategy and the other side is saying, "sure, we'll play fair" and the turning around and trying to ban everything they don't like or that makes them look bad. The ACLU in effect says "We believe in free sppech so much that we'll support your right to free speech even when we disagree with that speech", and the other side thinks "That's great for us, but you're a bunch of effing morons if you think we'll reciprocate!"

It's that sort of magical thinking that makes the ACLU a fairly ineffective orghanization (at best), in my opinion.