No, the phrase "controlled opposition" implies that they're for these ideals, and take up losing cases against them as a means of advancing them. It's not very

No, the phrase "controlled opposition" implies that they're for these ideals, and take up losing cases against them as a means of advancing them. It's not very plausible, but it's a theory :) For example, if I—a dyed-in-the-wool free speech advocate—bring a weak case against someone who wrote something unpopular, I can control the opposition within the case and ensure that I lose (and therefore my ideals are upheld). Again, not very plausible with respect to the ACLU's drift, but that's what parent seems to be suggesting as one of the possibilities.