Might be wrong, but it’s likely that only real solution is for the organization to introduce controls that attempt to put distance between the donors and operations of organization. Issue is donors, especially large ones, are very aware that organizations crave additional funds and often willing to bend the operations and positioning of an organization to gain them.
Beyond that, free speech is complex topic, so one for which I am sure I lack an even partial understanding of. I can easily see how hate speech is outsides of free speech in part because it feels without fail it’s only matter of time before someone takes the words to heart and lashes out in violence.
Given it appears only four lawyers at ACLU actually engage in free speech litigation according to prior article I linked to, beyond ACLU brand recognition and legacy funding, likely be worth funding and alternative organization instead of waiting for ACLU to default on its founding principals; possible retired ACLU free speech attorneys would be willing to mentor and advise these new attorneys.
Lastly, ACLU might easily address issue by making their potential case review assessments public and requiring those assessments include disclosure of any conflicting values and beliefs related to the case, especially case which they choose not to represent.
I don't think it's an issue with big donors specifically, or at least not just them. Thing is, a lot of people join ACLU for other causes - abortion is a popular one, for example. And back in 2016, many lefties joined during the Trump scare, on the general basis that something vaguely like ACLU was needed to push back all across the board. Naturally, the people who would do something like that tend to be those who feel strongly about politics and have strong opinions on various issues. But then those new members bring the entirety of their public politics to the internal politics of the organization, not just that one issue they joined over. A kind of Eternal September, if you will.
I don't think there is a solution to this, though. If ACLU doesn't get a steady supply of new members, it will wither and die. If it constrains itself to be small enough that the available supply of new members who fully support the existing platform is sufficient to sustain it (even as that platform becomes further away from the mainstream), it will be too small and lacking power for many important fights.
Might be wrong, but it’s likely that only real solution is for the organization to introduce controls that attempt to put distance between the donors and operations of organization. Issue is donors, especially large ones, are very aware that organizations crave additional funds and often willing to bend the operations and positioning of an organization to gain them.
Beyond that, free speech is complex topic, so one for which I am sure I lack an even partial understanding of. I can easily see how hate speech is outsides of free speech in part because it feels without fail it’s only matter of time before someone takes the words to heart and lashes out in violence.
Given it appears only four lawyers at ACLU actually engage in free speech litigation according to prior article I linked to, beyond ACLU brand recognition and legacy funding, likely be worth funding and alternative organization instead of waiting for ACLU to default on its founding principals; possible retired ACLU free speech attorneys would be willing to mentor and advise these new attorneys.
Lastly, ACLU might easily address issue by making their potential case review assessments public and requiring those assessments include disclosure of any conflicting values and beliefs related to the case, especially case which they choose not to represent.