You rebut your own points.

> An ACLU member who spent thousands of dollars and their free time trying to suppress free speech rights ... Free speech didn't cause this violence

That's exactly the point: he was not trying to suppress free speech rights, and conversely, the ACLU was not defending free speech. They thought they were. For good reasons. Nobody, including Jaquith, is questioning their good intentions. But they were wrong.

He was an ACLU member because he valued free speech, and he took an action that he believed was likely to prevent violence without risking free speech. The ACLU disagreed. He decided to continue being a member of the board of the ACLU of Virginia because he respected that he could have been wrong and the ACLU could have been right.

It turned out the ACLU was wrong.

Are we now to believe that the ACLU is infallible, that anything they call free speech is in fact free speech, and that even anyone involved with the ACLU who disagrees with the organization's decisions is to be excommunicated?

> If Strangio can't support free speech for everyone, including people he finds despicable

Again, he's supporting free speech for everyone, as far as that goal is possible. He believes that the ACLU's case is not in fact advancing the cause of free speech for everyone.

And, in any case, let us suppose that Strangio should resign from the ACLU and that Jaquith should never have joined. Even so, they have points worth debating honestly. Greenwald isn't doing that. Perhaps "free speech for everyone" is a self-contradictory goal, or a goal that simply serves as cover for "continued free speech for the powerful", and they can't honestly support that goal. That just means the ACLU is worth criticizing, and they're the people who would know the most about what the ACLU is doing wrong!

> How about they pick the ones that have the most importance in our society?

That is exactly what I'm proposing.

Milo Yiannopoulos is in no danger of not having his ideas heard by society, of people not knowing that he exists, of people not knowing what he believes. Neither were any of the folks at yesterday's rally. Their message was clear months in advance: they believe we should keep the statue of Robert E. Lee because it symbolizes a history worth remembering.

Milo is no minority viewpoint, nor is the alt-right. (Greenwald gets this wrong too, by pretending that the "mainstream" and the majority are the same, and everything opinion outside the mainstream/majority is equally marginalized.) His right to speak is important. But it is not significantly at risk, and as a result, defending his right is far from the most important thing in our society. The neo-Nazis were going to march in Charlottesville anyway; the ACLU picked a case that gave them the right to march in the park they wanted instead of the park they didn't want. I really do not understand the argument that anyone (neo-Nazis, antifa, the Papal Guard, whoever) being able to march in the right park is the most important issue in our society.

We don't even know who the person the ACLU didn't represent was going to say. We don't know who they were. And not only were they silenced, they are now gone from America.