I don't think this really holds up if you look at it a bit more closely - it's a somewhat ahistorical view based on ACLUs own public mythology (everyone knows a

I don't think this really holds up if you look at it a bit more closely - it's a somewhat ahistorical view based on ACLUs own public mythology (everyone knows about that one time the ACLU represented some Nazis who wanted to march in Skokie, etc) and the responses to it. The whole point of the ACLU is to advocate for a particular interpretation of certain constitutional 'principles' - interpretations which have changed quite significantly over time, both in the courts and the ACLU. This tells us something about the difficulty in even defining what it means for an organization to be defined by principles, never mind 'constitutional freedom'. ACLU's very first national chair publicly resigned over disagreement about principles, their meaning and prioritization. This was in 1940 so the notion the ACLU 'changed' now and didn't before is clearly inaccurate. You can't really have an organization like the ACLU without change. It's mostly a matter of whether you like the change or not.