In 1977 the United States Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in favour of the National Socialist Party of America (NSPA). The Village of Skokie sued the NSPA to prevent the neo-Nazi organization from holding a rally. Skokie—home to over forty-thousand Jewish people, many of whom were Holocaust survivors—filed a complaint and asked the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, for an emergency injunction. The village rightly noted that the National Socialist Party “is an organization dedicated to the incitation of racial and religious hatred directed principally against individuals of Jewish faith.” Furthermore, the proposed rally was “a deliberate and willful attempt to exacerbate the sensitivities of the Jewish population in Skokie.” The case was heard in the local Cook County Court, and then appealed to the appellate and supreme courts of Illinois, both of which stayed the injunction. On 14 June 1977 the United States Supreme Court ruled that Skokie’s injunction violated the NSPA’s First Amendment rights. The Nazis were allowed to march.
The United States, unlike Canada, has no legal definition for “hate speech.” However distasteful the NSPA’s views, we must begrudgingly admit that the Supreme Court ruled correctly in the eyes of the law. Nevertheless, the decision seems misguided. Why would the highest court in the land protect an organization with racist, genocidal views? Perhaps because the authors of the American Constitution understood the danger in government censorship. Today, words and phrases which were commonplace just years ago are denounced by mainstream media and partisan politicians as hateful. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s use of the term “sexual preference” just recently provoked the ire of progressives. Cornell University voted to change the name of the “English Department”, now deemed horribly offensive, to the inclusive “Department of Literatures in English.” Cornell English professors may think twice before cautioning their students against using the passive voice.
If hate speech exists, who should get to define it? If the government took the tack of our universities, it would be difficult for anyone to say anything at all. It is perfectly obvious that National Socialism is hateful, as is white supremacy and every other form of genuine racism. Indeed, the Jim Crow laws bore a marked resemblance to the Nuremburg Laws, and perhaps a society which bans Nazi rallies and burns Confederate flags is preferable to one which does not. The problem is that not every idea is as transparently evil as Nazism. If we do not accept free speech as an absolute and unassailable principle, what is to prevent us from gradually outlawing ideas which, while unpopular, are not evil? What happens when our definition of racism becomes so broad that it hampers free expression?
In recent years the range of acceptable belief seems to have narrowed in scope. When Bret Weinstein testified before Congress two years ago about The Evergreen State University, his statements appeared to be hyperbolic. After all Evergreen, alma mater of Matt Groening and Michael Richards, whose motto reads “Let it all hang out,” is hardly a serious academic institution, it might be maintained. The outraged mob who sought to oust Professor Weinstein would never be found at a “real” university like Cornell—Evergreen was hardly a microcosm of society. Fast forward to 2020 when Confederate statues have been toppled along with statues of Abraham Lincoln, the Virgin Mary and Mahatma Gandhi, and it is difficult to deny this professor’s prescience. Academics have been disciplined or fired for supposedly “racist” acts. Earlier this year Greg Patton of the University of Southern California was nearly terminated for saying a Chinese word (nèi ge) that “sounds like” the n-word. UCLA instructor Ajax Peris was investigated for quoting Martin Luther King, Jr.. Professor Gary Shank of Duquesne University was fired for leading a classroom discussion about why the n-word is problematic. These events are not isolated in the United States. In Canada, the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship reports similar instances with an alarming frequency.
Weinstein warned Congress about big-tech overreach and censorship as well. As private businesses, social media companies are not bound by the First Amendment and may remove whatever they like. Incidentally, Facebook removed Weinstein’s account just days ago. Journalists have also been ousted from mainstream media corporations for expressing dissenting political views. Others, such as Bari Weiss and Barbara Kay have left of their own volition after realising that their views are no longer welcome.
Buildings, too, have been renamed. Woodrow Wilson College at Princeton University and Sir John A. Macdonald Hall at Queen’s University are two of many examples. Street names are another common target. It is true that streets have long been renamed to reflect changing societal values, and to remember the legacy of national heroes. After Martin Luther King, Jr., was assassinated, for instance, many streets were christened in his honour. Perhaps this is what is happening now. Perhaps our changing linguistic landscape is not an Orwellian campaign against free expression. Perhaps cultural conservatives are overreacting, and we are finally picking up in 2020 where the Civil Rights Movement left off in 1968.
Or, perhaps something much more sinister is at play, and we are all boiling frogs. Our ostensibly progressive and tolerant cultural revolution resembles all other cultural revolutions conducted by supposed political messiahs. The tactics which the activists employ resemble the tactics of the very people who the activists claim to detest. In Nazi Germany it was common practice to rename city streets. On 1 November 1938, “Hallerstrasse” was renamed “Ostmarkstrasse.” The former street was named for Martin Haller, a Jewish architect who designed Hamburg’s city hall. Understanding the power of symbolism, the Nazis wished to remove any and all aspects of Judaism from German culture; these were the people who, according to Hitler, had lost Germany the First World War, hoarded wealth, and destroyed the economy. Similar accusations are levelled at the individuals whose names are now being erased from the public eye. These are the names of men who built a “corrupt” society, who were wealthy and privileged, and on whom our current struggles can be pinned.
In 1977 even neo-Nazis could say what they thought—for better or for worse. Now it seems that people who disagree with a self-flagellating interpretation of our history and our reality, or who welcome disagreement in the interest of open debate, are pariahs on university campuses, in newsrooms and in workplaces. We should look to National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie not as a miscarriage of justice, but rather as an example of our society’s integrity. To live in a free society is not to live in a perfect society, because perfection is unattainable. The societies which have sought after Utopia have always been totalitarian and have always failed universally. We will not be an exception to that rule.
15 comments
Labels don’t define content. Recently in Berlin Reichstag the CDU and SPD bar one voted for new draconian laws that did away with basic rights and freedom in one’s home. The parties against this draconian diktatur were among others the AfD. So righteous parties for democracy were utterly gone against the principle they so moralistically enunciated which the people aren’t buying – noticed by huge gatherings defying the idiocy of wearing useless masks.
To add to the list of crazy censorship happening on college campus’s and at large:
A couple months ago Head Football Coach Gary Patterson, of TCU, called out one of his players for regularly using the n-word during team meetings. He threatened to send the player back to his home town and when the player asked why, Patterson replied “because you keep saying (N) during team meetings!” and Patterson said the word. The player then took to twitter saying his coach had used the n-word with #blm and several players boycotted practice the next day. A day later Coach Patterson(!) was being raked over the coals by his student leadership council and was made to issue a formal apology for uttering the word.
Context be damned.
https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/college/big-12/texas-christian-university/article244688892.html
I am fairly new to this website but I feel compelled to tell you how very much I enjoyed your article. I’ve been trying to have a discourse with my daughter for several years about our political differences. I always start with the adage that I will go to my death defending her right to speak freely regardless of whether or not I agree but that real freedom of speech means that she should be willing to do the same for me and those with whom she disagrees.
I wish I could report success but, alas, we are still a work in progress as they say.
Your insights have helped me articulate my opinions much more cogently and effectively and I wanted to thank you.
Please keep writing. We need your voice.
As a Chinese living under rule of an authoritarian dictatorship, where certain kinds of political/historical opinions got routinely censored deleted and punished, I’m shocked that how little western society and the public nowadays understand the importance of freedom of speech for maintaining an open-minded mature society.
If only one person claims that certain word/opinion/fact hurts their fickle feelings and then that speech has to be censored, with or without malic, there would be nothing left to say in this world. Every word could suddently become a discriminatory thing. That’s insane.
Agreed John. It’s an ever-changing landscape of rules and regulations. I never quite know when I’m going to step in it, but I almost always do and then, invariably, I get the lecture about my privilege and so forth.
It’s become disconcerting and has most definitely changed several relationships in my family.
I believe “take for granted” is the appropriate cliche. We have it easy so we casually discard the very principles that made it possible for prosperity and ease.
Also there will always be political agitators that seize on opportunities to sway population and censorship is an insanely powerful tool so it seems to me that freedom of speech will be an ever present battle to maintain.
Well, John Smith, there are certainly a lot of us “out here” who do value free speech, and don’t take it for granted. We must persist.
This is one of those cases where binary thinking can illustrate the problem.
– You support Free Speech, or you do not.
– You support liberal democracy, or you do not.
– You support pluralism, or you do not.
It’s the alternatives to this long-established status quo that must define those alternatives, and demonstrate why they are superior.
I just learned about Eric Hoffer, a social psychologist and political scientist. Here’s a great thought from his book, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements- “A movement is pioneered by men of words, materialized by fanatics and consolidated by men of actions.”
This, so far is most of what I know. I like the quote so I will do more reading from Hoffer.
F.Y. Chang-
Yep. Belushi was a funny man. Evidently, his line, “I hate IL Nazis” has been used in protests against the IL Gov J.B. Pritzker.
I’m from IL, but live elsewhere, I keep current with Illinois news. I know Pritzker is a member of the Hyatt Hotel chain family. His sister, Penny, was Obama’s Sec of Commerce and sits on the board of Microsoft. The Pritzkers are the 15th wealthiest family in the world.
I understand IL residents are really angry over the Draconian measures the gov unilaterally enacted.
Back on topic, The Blues Brothers was a funny movie.
“I hate Illinois Nazis.”
I hate haters.
Remember the Martin Niemoller quote (should be an umlat over the o) First they came for ….?”
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Niemoller’s quote is relevant to all situations where free speech is an issue, not just the Holocaust. Free speech cuts both ways. If we want the opportunity to say things others don’t like, we have to accept those words we don’t like!
Humans seem to be unable to realize that the laws/rules they create eventually bite them in the ass. Anthony Wiener, disgraced NY US Congressman is a good example. If you don’t remember, check out how Wiener ended up on the sex offender’s registry.
Fun trivia fact: the neo-nazi character in the movie, The Blue Brothers, is based on the Nazi protest leaders in Skokie.
“If we do not accept free speech as an absolute and unassailable principle, what is to prevent us from gradually outlawing ideas which, while unpopular, are not evil?”
As a society, we seem to no longer accept it. Not sure if outlawing dissent will be necessary, as we now have people who won’t speak their mind out of fear of reprisal, be it direct violence, “excommunication” from the neighborhood, losing their job, or more.
The idea that free speech is absolute is already gone. The rest is only a matter of time.
I agree with you TonyG. If there is one moment in time (I think) when the absolutist view on speech was lost it is when hate speech laws were enacted.
Attribution theory (when people attribute motives, thoughts, etc to others in an attempt to understand) is basically mind reading and explains hate speech.
I hope all is not lost. If history is a good indicator of future events, America should expect to see a new conservative, less radical society ushered in. This is not a political comment.
Eventually many college students and high schoolers eventually enter what I call “the grown up world”. Many don’t like what their ideas produce. However, each time the pendulum swings away from Marxist/collectivist ideas, the next swing back goes further. We all have to be vigilant about protecting what we still have.