See for example [0]. The core concern is that the ACLU is going through an identity crisis as its membership evolves, and it is shifting strategy from defending

See for example [0]. The core concern is that the ACLU is going through an identity crisis as its membership evolves, and it is shifting strategy from defending the right of free speech for all (including the defending the right of free speech for speakers and statements its members strongly disagree with) to defending the right of free speech for those aligned with its values. That is a shift many long time supporters of the ACLU view as a dangerous failing of the organization because the key free speech cases frequently involve abhorrent speech, but that is where the case law for the rest of speakers is determined. After working, as it historically has, to defend speech its membership considers wrong or unpleasant in connection with a 2017 Charlottesville VA case, "Revulsion swelled within the A.C.L.U., and many assailed its executive director, Anthony Romero, and legal director, Mr. Cole, as privileged and clueless. The A.C.L.U. unfurled new guidelines that suggested lawyers should balance taking a free speech case representing right-wing groups whose “values are contrary to our values” against the potential such a case might give “offense to marginalized groups.”[0] Defending speech you don't like or agree with takes a strong stomach, but if you want to be a defender of free speech, those are the battles you must fight. If you let speech you disagree with be silenced, you give the government the tools it needs to silence speech, including speech you like and agree with. [0]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html?...