but not often, the ACLU, instead of really being advocates for the better good of the public, end up pointing out to us the dangers of unlimited free speech and personal freedoms. This situation is clearly to me the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example and yet there is no such clause written into the Constitution.

So here's the ACLU's dilemma. Do you always go by the letter of the Constitution as the Libertarians would have us do, or do you make the logical exceptions and simply back away from those cases where you risk undoing all the good you do by taking on the real issues. Even the Supreme Court has the ability to just say "no" to taking on a controversial case.

This is one they should have stayed out of.

Art