As often as we joke about progressives doing everything they can to ensure Trump is reelected in 2020 and perhaps beyond, the truth is he won’t be around forever — and that’s what makes the ever-expanding crop of takes on free speech so disturbing.

Yes, it was shocking to see rioting in Berkeley over a planned speech by Milo Yiannopoulos, but the crackdown on free speech on campuses has been leaking out into the cities. Back in May, the ACLU of Oregon blasted the mayor of Portland, who had asked the feds to bar free-speech and anti-sharia rallies after a Bernie Bro fatally stabbed two men on a commuter train.

That’s sort of what you’d expect the ACLU to do, but in an opinion piece in Wednesday’s L.A. Times, the University of Chicago Law School’s Laura Weinrib argues that the ACLU should view free speech “as a tool of social justice, suited to particular purposes under particular conditions.”

No, seriously.

Yes, a woman was killed protesting a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., but let’s not forget that hooded mobs were out in Portland the night Hillary conceded the election, clashing with police, vandalizing property, and so on. Presidential terms are far from timeless, but the First Amendment had damn well better be.

It really, really is. Come on: “Almost a century later, is a dogged commitment to free speech still the best strategy for an organization that is avowedly pursuing the ‘advancement of civil rights and social justice’? That question once again requires evaluation of conditions on the ground.”

* * *