This is where you fail. Completely fail. If we do not, this precedent will be used to attack us.
It's the same reason one supports Hunter Biden's gun rights before the Supreme Court: because if he wins, suddenly a whole lot of BS convictions die. Does he deserve everything bad to happen to him? Yeah. Would it be better for everyone if he ended up becoming a patsy to get better gun rights? Also yeah. Same logic applies here.
It's not that the ADL deserves rights. It's that if we don't give them rights, it will be twisted to fuck us all.
You continue to assert this, yet I see no evidence of your claim. I also find it peculiar that you fix your reaction entirely on my fourth point, and seemingly -- no, in fact,
blatantly -- ignore the other points. They argue against your position; you have not refuted the points, however. Merely ignored them.
You have stated agreement with point 1. As you'll be able to see, points 2 and 3 form a logical argument derived from the premise of point 1. I assume, therefore, that you agree with points 1, 2 and 3. If not, you'd have to either argue that the ADL doesn't seek to infringe upon the free speech of others (a fairly ludicrous assertion, I hope you'll agree), or you'll have to find fault with my logic (which seems difficult, since my reasoning is pretty much iron-clad, I think). If (1) is true, and (2) describes the situation, then (3) is the logical conclusion of applying (1) to (2).
Meanwhile, (4) is in turn the inevitable consequence derived from (3). If (3) is true, then (4) is also true, unless there are specific additional conditions under which it is
not true.
That would mean that to disagree with point 4, you'd have to introduce some new, additional argument in favour of an exception to the logic. That is: "Those who deny rights to others can't claim those rights for themselves, but we should let the ADL do it anyway,
because..."
Because what?
You say it's because otherwise the restriction be used against us, but my points 4 and 5 indicate why that isn't true. You haven't refuted or even addressed those points. At the core of the argument, you neglect to recognise that there is a difference between a violator and a non-violator. They are categorically different. Denying rights to a violator on the grounds that he is a violator doesn't put the rights of non-violators at risk, because to deny them any right, you first have to prove the violation.
Hence my comparison: shooting a robber in your home.
The ultimate conclusion of your logic is that we wouldn't be allowed to shoot a robber, because we have to "respect the rights of evil, too".
But we don't. We really don't. In fact, we categorically
must not.