Summary
The article tells how Holocaust terror victims (those affected directly and indirectly) led their lives in late 1970s, in Skokie, a suburb of Chicago. The victims expected that their new neighborhood would offer them the peace that they needed to exist, without persecution. However, the announcement by a neo-Nazi group of its intention to hold a parade at Skokie in 1977 shattered the dreams of the Holocaust terror victims. Philippa Strum’s dramatic retelling of the events in Skokie (and in the courts) ignites enormous controversy and challenges regarding our understanding of and commitment to the values enshrined in the First Amendment. It was not hard to envision the unfolding debate. On the one hand, the Nazis in America maintained that they were entitled to free speech. On the other hand, the Jews in America, whom the Nazis were targeting, asserted that living free of intimidation was their right. Separately, the town maintained that the planed march by the Nazis would more than likely fuel violence. Accordingly, the court granted the town an injunction against the planned march. The Civil Right Union in America responded to this court ruling by opting to defend the planned march by the Nazis and accordingly, defended free speech.
The different elements accompanying a difficult case were also evident in Skokie. They included the presence of an absolute class, preceding speech restraint as well as heated sentiments from the public. In recreating it, Strum presents a detailed account and analysis of the legal proceedings as well as finely delineated portraits of the protagonists. One of the leading protagonists is Frank Collin, a leader of the American National Party whose father survived the Jewish Holocaust. Another protagonist is Sol Goldstein, a community leader in Skokie and himself a survivor of the Holocaust as well. He was very vocal in countering the attempt by the Nazis to match to Skokie. Albert Smith, who was at the time the mayor of Skokie, is another protagonist, but his main intention was to offer his town people protection. David Goldberger, an attorney at ACLU found himself in a compromising position, because he represented the Nazis in this case against the Jews, while he was Jewish. Although Goldberger and ACLU emerged victors nonetheless, it was a very costly victory, because over 30,000 members of this organization sought to leave. The most ironical thing is that even after granted the right to match towards Skokie was granted to them, the Nazis never did so.
The book by Strum illustrates the need to defend freedom of speech at all times, regadless of the beneficiaries. It raises both constitutional and moral issues critical to our understanding of free speech and carries important lessons for current controversies over hate speech on college campuses, inviting readers to think more carefully about what the first amendment really means” (Strum, 1999, p.23).
First Amendment
In the United States, The First Amendment constitutes the country’s Bill of rights. The Congress to the United States is restricted by the First Amendment from making laws that hinders religious freedom, establishment of religion, contravenes free speech freedom as well as press freedom. During the 20th century, the United States’ Supreme Court maintained that the Fourteenth Amendment clause on due process finds applications in the individual states, in addition to the local governments (Marnell, 1964, p. 4).
Skokie’s case ruling
In the ruling of Skokie case, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the residents of Skokie, although it still allowed the planned marching by the NSP (National Socialist Party) to go no. in this case, the Supreme Court held that use of swastikas signifies free speech and therefore, the First Amendment protects it. The court delivery held that
Use of swastika was not symbolic of “fighting words”. This case is a testament that the First Amendment is able to deliver in the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, “a marketplace of ideas” (Marnell, 1964, p. 4), in which the expression of views is open, regardless of their popularity. Nonetheless, only a handful of the federal courts have thus far overly declared broadly that the use of hate speech is unconstitutional, although it is important that they do so. No one benefits from broad rules whose only work is to either forbid or construe discussions regarding such controversial subjects as affirmative action or evolution.
On the other hand, the idea of a majority of the people about hate speech differs from this viewpoint. Colleges are not forbidden against drafting what can at best, be described as narrow rules to suit their wishes of controlling those meant to obey such rules. In the event that individuals challenge the decisions of these colleges, it is more than likely that the court will rule in favor of the colleges. Delgado (2004, p. 35) reports of the rulings of the Supreme Court that struck down laws that were opposed to the practice of upholding affirmative action, sodomy, and favoring punishment of those found guilty of cross-burning. Indeed, this is a clear testimony of the fact that the courts are ill informed regarding current events. As Delgado notes, “Society is becoming more diverse. Reasonable rules aimed at accommodating that diversity and regulating the conduct of bullies and bigots are to be applauded- not feared.” (Delgado, 2004, p. 35).
Conclusion
In as much as the law may appear to be unfair, especially when one considers a given controversial case or issue in the society, its making seeks to serve and benefit the citizens. The citizens must learn to live without taking advantage of unclearly defined laws. In this case, the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Nazi to march in Skokie was supported by the law but it was inappropriate. This is because by the sight of a Nazi the Holocaust survivors suffer by remembering violence they went through. They proposed to use swastikas in their parade, which, for obvious reasons, would make the Holocaust survivors remember the Holocaust with utter vividness. The law supported their ideas but it was unfair for them to parade in the Jew-inhabited Skokie. The First Amendment needs a full interpretation at all times to avoid such kind of unfair rulings in the future. The courts should also understand the types of freedom of speech that are reasonably within rights.
Reference List
Delgado, R., (2004). Hate cannot be tolerated. USAToday.
Marnell, W. H. (1964). The First Amendment: Religious Freedom in America from Colonial Days to The School Prayer Controversy.
New York: Doubleday & Company Strum, Philippa. (1999). When the Nazis Came to Skokie: Freedom for Speech We Hate. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1999