Persons have the legal right to reveal themselves to be bigoted cretins, or so ruled the Supreme Court in the 1978 Skoki case. In a 5-4 decision, the majority determined that the white supremacist National Socialist Party of America could legally march through the predominantly Jewish community of Skokie, Ill. <\/p>\n
The Court has, in fact, long protected offensive expression see, for example, the Johnson and McCutcheon rulings in which they concluded that, respectively, flag desecration and campaign contributions must also be protected as a political expression. <\/p>\n
Why? Because free expression is foundational to liberal democracy: No person or group has a monopoly on truth. Even ones most cherished beliefs must be held up to the scrutiny of competing ideas, so long as such scrutiny does not represent a clear and present danger and is not done, as in cross burnings, with the primary intent of intimidation. <\/p>\n
But surely expressions as vulgar as valorizing a regime the Nazis that caused such unspeakable suffering can be restricted? The Skokie case was telling precisely because the community was predominantly Jewish; it even included a large population of Holocaust survivors. The Court rightly determined that the petitioning groups actions, as offensive as they were, did not represent a direct danger to the townships citizens. The majority went on to argue that even beliefs as foul as those that make up the supremacy dogma must be engaged and understood before they can be rejected. <\/p>\n
Such engagement, sadly, must be continuous and brightly lit, so that fascism and bigotry cannot thrive. Virulent hatred seems all too dominant in the human psyche, as revealed in contemporary political rhetoric that has emboldened extremism and helped foment an increase in hate groups. The Southern Poverty Law Center is currently tracking over 900 organizations, with hundreds of thousands of members or sympathizers. <\/p>\n
Sympathizers who are, evidently, among our neighbors. It wasnt that long ago that the KKK held annual rallies on North Chester Avenue and the undercurrent clearly remains, as we were shown in last weeks grotesque display of the Nazi flag at North High School. <\/p>\n
These students actions were deeply offensive, as was their purported justification, an asinine attempt to create equivalency between sexual and gender identity and Nazism. But one would be hard pressed to say their actions rose to the clear and present danger standard. Furthermore, the Court has given strong First Amendment protections to students. In 1969s Tinker ruling, Justice Fortas, writing for the majority, declared that students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate, as long as such expression does not disrupt the schools educational mission. He went on to eloquently emphasize the need for school-age expression, so as not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes. <\/p>\n
How, then, should the school deal with these students? Their actions will undoubtedly lead to future conversations, in class and out, on the horrors of Nazism and associated fascism and bigotry surely a good thing. The school would be justified in punishing them, thus, only if they had a clear goal of intimidation and, from the outside and based on some of their Facebook comments, it is easy to jump to that conclusion. But intent is a terribly difficult thing to evaluate and it has to be up to those who know them best campus leadership to make that call. At the very least, it would seem a day should be devoted next year to history, tolerance and understanding. <\/p>\n
Last, a shout-out to The Californian for covering the story. As disturbing as it is to be reminded of our communitys underbelly, it must be brought into the light of day: Even if the students actions were largely benign, one must still be troubled by a family and social environment in which such beliefs, let alone associated paraphernalia, are sustained. <\/p>\n
Christopher Meyers, PhD, is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Kegley Institute of Ethics at CSUB. The views expressed are his own. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read the rest here: Persons have the legal right to reveal themselves to be bigoted cretins, or so ruled the Supreme Court in the 1978 Skoki case. In a 5-4 decision, the majority determined that the white supremacist National Socialist Party of America could legally march through the predominantly Jewish community of Skokie, Ill. The Court has, in fact, long protected offensive expression see, for example, the Johnson and McCutcheon rulings in which they concluded that, respectively, flag desecration and campaign contributions must also be protected as a political expression Continue reading
\nCommunity Voices: Free speech, even a Nazi flag, foundation of democracy - The Bakersfield Californian<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"