The American Civil Liberties Union recently continued its hypocrisy on free speech and  the Constitution  by siding with the federal government against a small mortgage company for its employees' banter about dangerous parts of Chicago and the surrounding suburbs.

Townstone Financial is currently battling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in federal court for comments its personnel made about crime and dangerous parts of the south suburbs and the South Side of Chicago, as  recently covered  by the Washington Examiner.

Now the company finds its free speech rights facing an ironic opponent: the national ACLU and its Illinois affiliate, which filed a brief against the company, reviewed by the Washington Examiner. The irony is not lost on Barry Sturner, the president of Townstone Financial, who points out that the organization once infamously represented neo-Nazis who wanted to march through Skokie, Illinois, in  1977  when he was a child.

“I grew up as a Jewish kid in Skokie, Illinois — the site of one of the most famous free speech battles in American history,” Sturner told the Washington Examiner. “To this day, the ACLU boasts their defense of the Nazis who wanted to march through my hometown. And rightfully so; the First Amendment must protect unpopular speech if it's going to mean anything at all.”

“I never imagined that when the government came after me for my speech, the ACLU would take the government's side,” Sturner said. “It's disheartening to see the ACLU abandon its free speech principles.”

The brief, filed with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, says, “The ACLU works to promote and safeguard individuals’ civil rights and civil liberties, including the right of every individual to access housing and credit free of discrimination.” That is an admirable goal, ensuring that everyone is fairly treated when it comes to mortgage lending.

But the result of a ruling against Townstone Financial would be a threat against the First Amendment. This is nothing new for the ACLU, however. It  sided  against the free speech rights of Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who declined to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding. It also  sided  with California against pro-life pregnancy help centers that did not want to promote abortion at the behest of the state.

The opposition to Townstone’s free speech rights stems from a  2018 document  that explained the ACLU will try to balance “the proposed speech” against “the potential effect on marginalized communities.” 

I don’t argue that the ACLU must actively defend every individual or entity, but it should never actively oppose First Amendment rights.

A ruling against Townstone Financial and Barry Sturner would have the effect of suppressing political speech. Any commentary that could vaguely be identified as critical of areas where racial minorities live could be punished by the federal government. 

The right to comment on the desirability of an area is an extension of the right to criticize government officials, which I think the ACLU still supports. Let’s say Sturner, instead of just calling Chicago a “war zone,” had said something more specific such as, “The mayor’s lack of support for active policing has made Kenwood in Chicago a war zone.” Clearly, that is protected political speech. 

The ACLU styles itself as the champion against an intrusive government and the defender of the little guy’s civil liberties. But once again, it finds itself taking the position that may be popular with its leftist donors rather than the legally and morally correct stance.

Matt Lamb is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is an associate editor for the College Fix and has previously worked for Students for Life of America and Turning Point USA.