Accuracy in Media

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is not a typical friend of the political Right, but its recent defense of the freedom of speech for all Americans, after the Charlottesville tragedy, apparently riled up an attorney who wrote an op-ed in the New York Times.

Why was this attorney upset? The ACLU issued a statement that defended all political speech as free speech, when the attorney felt that “right-wing” speech is not worth defending:

The danger that communities face because of their speech isn’t equal. The A.C.L.U.’s decision to offer legal support to a right-wing cause, then a left-wing cause, won’t make it so. Rather, it perpetuates a misguided theory that all radical views are equal. And it fuels right-wing free-speech hypocrisy. Perhaps most painful, it also redistributes some of the substantial funds the organization has received to fight white supremacy toward defending that cause.

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


  • Walt Ramsey

    Unfortunately the article does not identify the attorney… he has mastered the obscure art of Orwellian “doublespeak”. How can “Free Speech” not be defined for everybody??? That is like Hitler or Stalin declaring that the only “Free Speech” is what they say.

  • Honesty Movement

    Free speech is there to protect ideas you don’t like. Free speech means you can say anything short of violent threats and lies, even if those ideas aren’t socially palatable. The way the author writes with such contempt at the notion of someone with a differing opinion being allowed to make their voice heard speaks volumes about what kind of person the author is.

  • taptoudt

    “Free Speech” is something this “lawyer” should have learned about in law school. I don’t believe the person who wrote this drivel is a lawyer or even a grown-up. The only way to prevent “free speech” is to have it removed from the Constitution.

  • jg collins

    I’m no fan of the ACLU, but there are times when it steps up to the plate and delivers a message that is equitable, consistent with its goals, and needs to be said. Well done.

    It’s not surprising to find this sort of dangerous drivel in The New York Times, an anagram of “The Monkeys Write.” Another monkey has written, claiming to be a lawyer, someone who should know better. Does he serve in the ape-pellate courts? Or does he specialize in pro bonobo work?

  • mrhuehls

    Whoever wrote that op-ed in the NY Times does not understand the bill of rights of our constitution. In this case both the President and the ACLU have it correct: “Hate speech is protected speech.” I do not like it. Most rational people do not like it, but it is what it is and the constitution says so. The media has it all wrong and cannot stop running in circles to get it right, and the leftist progressive liberals are following their media leadership in their footsteps parroting their narrative far and wide without knowledge, understanding, or rational thought.

  • J. Glenn

    When Islam comes for the queers (and there are a lot of homosexuals within the U.S. entertainment-media complex), there will be no one left to speak up. Tsk, tsk, tsk.