tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8544096816673140807.post539592367853757264..comments2023-06-24T09:44:43.871-04:00Comments on Everyone's Wrong and I'm Right: The Nazis in Skokie: 30 Years LaterCLIFFORD METHhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12594465631270297769noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8544096816673140807.post-38444151067972491142016-09-22T15:04:00.277-04:002016-09-22T15:04:00.277-04:00The Skokie matter was wrongly decided, due to inco...The Skokie matter was wrongly decided, due to incomplete analysis of exceptions to free speech.<br /><br />Free speech is not absolute; it depends upon the content of the speech. Obvious exceptions to free speech are dangerous speech (fire in a crowded theatre) and specific threatening speech ("I intend to kill you"). <br /><br />The error in the Skokie decision is the omission of an obvious third exception type: a credible threat of violence which is not specific, if supported by ideology and by historical pattern of mass murder. (Yes, I'm suggesting new case law and/or new refinement of existing case law; Skokie should have been used to establish this third exception type.) <br /><br />Thus, the Nazi march and uniform and flag are indeed expression and a form of speech, but what do they say? They say, "Let's kill Jews." This is a credible threat because it is supported by two massive foundations: Association with an extensive, organised ideology; and a historical pattern of implementing the threat (six million dead). <br /><br />If a historical pattern is admissible in judging a wife batterer, it should be equally admissible in judging a threatening organisation.<br /><br />Thus, the Nazi name, uniform, flag, swastika, etc are a form of speech which is a credible threat of violence. The same could be argued of a KKK group burning a cross, even on its own property: It is a threat of intended violence, rendered credible by the organizational history and ideology combined with the historical pattern of action to implement the ideology (10,000 lynched blacks).<br /><br />(For similar reasons, the infamous Metzger case should have resulted in criminal conviction.)<br /><br />In contrast, Farrakhan's hate speech is protected; though outright hatred of whites and Jews, it is not backed by any organized plan for mass violence nor historical pattern of action to implement the plan. Farrakhan can proclaim his hatred all he likes.<br /><br />Alternately stated, there is a line, fine though it may be, between simple hate speech and hate speech intended to instigate violence in the long term. Cf. the infamous Metzger case, which should have resulted in criminal conviction.<br /><br />As a separate issue, there is an argument for American Nazis or KKK to be classified as terrorist groups and thus outlawed.Observernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8544096816673140807.post-57082603594008330622012-12-08T01:47:15.438-05:002012-12-08T01:47:15.438-05:00Hi-- I'm writing in response to Thomas, even t...Hi-- I'm writing in response to Thomas, even though the thoughts you write about, Thomas, aren't mine: but I believe the post is disagreeing with Decker's statement. And I don't think I agree with Decker's statement any longer, myself. I think Decker's statement may blur the line between speech or expression and actual coercion, intimidation, offense, harm. Just some thoughts, though. Sending best wishes-- Joanie. Joanie Mackowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567635203995936774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8544096816673140807.post-10464231246403930222011-06-09T23:19:33.405-04:002011-06-09T23:19:33.405-04:00I googled Judge Decker's statement, and your b...I googled Judge Decker's statement, and your blog came up. As a long-time comics fan I of course recognized Dave Cockrum on the sidebar, I am a fan and bought a copy of the Uncanny Tribute book!<br /><br />I feel like I'm missing the point of this post... are you disagreeing with Decker's statement? You say "one sad note" but I don't see the connection between defending one's community- which I strongly agree with- and the government allowing a community to decide what elements are "undesirable". I agree with Decker's quote, that our constitution rights are exactly the thing that are "the best protection we have against the establishment of any Nazi-type regime in this country."<br /><br />I respect your writing, and your opinions, and am sincerely seeking understand your thoughts. I know I'm missing something here.Thomas Negovannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8544096816673140807.post-84930069608644257802008-06-30T14:03:00.000-04:002008-06-30T14:03:00.000-04:00As I recall, didn't the Nazis target the Jewish po...As I recall, didn't the Nazis target the Jewish population of Skokie because they couldn't originally get a permit to march in Chicago? My recollection is that they used that as evidence of their "victory" by claiming they got what they wanted all along: to march in Chicago. I wasn't there, or even alive, so I'm not sure, but that's what I remember from what I heard about it.Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14643842878139411876noreply@blogger.com