. . . .

The impact of the proposed speech and the impact of its suppression: Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed, depending on factors such as the (present and historical) context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20180621ACLU.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4008245&forum_id=2#36292503)

(1) Naive view: True as stated. The ACLU is balancing its interests in promoting free speech on the one hand and helping blacks and queers make America worse on the other, and finds that the former has a deleterious effect on the latter. For that reason it will limit its still-cherished mission of free speech (presumably because free speech still has weakly positive instrumental value, as a rule, in ruining society).

(2) Hopeful view: The ACLU had a genuine commitment to the principle of free speech, viewing the principle itself as either sacrosanct in its own right or as the guarantor of freedom. But the ACLU has finally succumbed to moral pressure to renege on that commitment, since free speech can be and is being used against the agenda of the socially vulnerable (or whatever the ACLU calls blacks and queers). This was the inevitable consequence of a shift in liberal values away from a politics of freedom and toward a harm-based morality. It is not formally dropping free speech as a principle to which it is dedicated for reasons of optics.

(3) Other view: Free speech was useful in corroding American society in previous decades. Since it is now being used to defend whatever vestiges remain of culture and tradition, it's time to drop it as a principle worth defending.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4008245&forum_id=2#36292749)

"Kaminer objects to any acknowledgement that speech can cause harm. But that is simply a recognition of fact, and denying it flies in the face of LIVED EXPERIENCE and ignores the costs of free speech."

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/22/aclus-david-cole-responds-about-aclu-and

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4008245&forum_id=2#36294510)