They have limited resources and so they cannot fight every single fight. Some people object to their current method of filtering. Apparently, groups tied to neo-nazi/white-supremacy are some of the ones they filter out of consideration, but they have done so in the past.
Some people think the ACLU should fight specifically for such organizations to make a point that everyone, even hateful bigots, have the same rights.
Personally? I'm on the fence. On the one hand, given limited resources & all else being equal in two cases, why not choose the group of people who are nicer? On the other hand, if you choose the hateful group & set a precedent that even the most hateful people have the same set of rights as others, it's close to irrefutable in future cases with nicer people that they get those rights too.
As soon as you identify a label that can be used to deny free speech, that label will be applied to everything and everybody in an effort to deny free speech. It is extremely important to defend free speech. Some people get confused and think that a defense of free speech is a defense of the label.
Historically, the ACLU is one of the most well known organizations to defend free speech regardless of label. They should not create such a gaping vulnerability in their strategy.
Don't announce to the world that any case involving the word "crypto" will not be defended. Or the words "carpentry", "space", or "elephant". The issue should be free speech, not miscellaneous labels.
I think "failing to support" in the grandparent comment is too weak for some. This is Glenn Greenwald on a recent ACLU amicus brief[1]:
>> This is the first time, at least to my knowledge, that ACLU is explicitly arguing in court that the First Amendment's free speech clause has been interpreted *too broadly* by courts, and are advocating *a more restrictive view* of what free speech means.
I'm not sure about that case in particular, but on your question of
> why not choose the group of people who are nicer?
I'd say the grim batman ACLU of my alternate-history fanfic cares more about precedent than it does about defendants.
If Greenwald's high school teacher found out he was gay and started referring to him with feminine pronouns, because the teacher felt being gay feminizes you, would Greenwald just chalk that up to free speech? Or would he consider it bullying that ought to stop?
What if a white teacher spoke to the only black student in the room using his own version of AVE, and used his usual English for the rest of the class?
I don't know the answer, but I can understand the ACLU seeing a case where rights come into conflict and choosing a result that seems more just.
There appear to be two different rights in conflict there, so there's some complexity to the situation.
On the one hand there's the teachers' free speech rights, freedom from compelled speech. On the other hand are the students' civil rights protecting against discrimination.
The ACLU in that situation has decided the later should prevail over the former when it pertains to government workers & their speech while on-the-job.
Does that type of speech, refusing to respect a person's identity, have any additional legal implications being that they seem to be public employees in a public school system? Discrimination as they argue in private businesses versus government ones? IANAL, just curious
The brief summary here[1] implies that's the basis of the ACLU's reasoning:
>> Mr. Cross spoke in opposition to Policy 8040 at a school board meeting, and refused to comply with the provision...
>> While the teachers may disagree with the policy, they do not have the right to violate it in their capacity as K-12 teachers in the Loudoun County school system.
The brief was unclear about whether the teacher refused to comply in the meeting or in another circumstance, and I don't care enough to check sorry.
FWIW, I'm mostly in favour of at-will employment, and think that they should be able to suspend or get rid of him for any reason. And I'm in favour of school choice, and think that if the views of parents and teachers would be better reflected if the government weren't involved. And I'm a cynic, and believe that the only reason anyone's talking about a Virginia school is the governor's race, and it's all just entertainment for people living elsewhere.
Some people think the ACLU should fight specifically for such organizations to make a point that everyone, even hateful bigots, have the same rights.
Personally? I'm on the fence. On the one hand, given limited resources & all else being equal in two cases, why not choose the group of people who are nicer? On the other hand, if you choose the hateful group & set a precedent that even the most hateful people have the same set of rights as others, it's close to irrefutable in future cases with nicer people that they get those rights too.