is probably best known for a case we handled back in the 1970s, the so-called skokie case from skokie illinois, a town with a large jewish population, many of whom were holocaust survivors. yet the aclu, despite its strong support for equal rights, racial justice, an opposition to any kind of discursive nation, including anti-semitism, nonetheless came to support of the free speech rights. a group of neo-nazis who wanted to demonstrate in skokie provocatively because of the large jewish holocaust survivor population, the aclu can tin tenus to take that very unpopular position. peter, let's face it, most people support freedom of speech by me or people me, but not for day. and in the skokie situation, the aclu easily won that case in the courts of law, including the united states supreme court, because it involved what the court has called the bedrock principle of freedom of speech, viewpoint, neutrality, content neutrality. government must remain neutral with respect to the idea, the viewpoint, the message, the content. but that was a very unpopular position in the court of public opinion. the