Hate Speech Pros And Cons

Hate speech has been a long, controversial issue in the United States of America. The reason is because some people believe that it is part of the first amendment right which states that every citizen of this country has the freedom of speech ("No, There's No ‘hate Speech’ Exception to the First Amendment.") However, on the other hand, some people also believe that it is not part of that protected right due to the fact that it could lead to unexpected consequences such as violence or even death. According to the American Bar Association website, hate speech is defined as “[a] speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.” Many people argue

that this goes against every moral standard the United States is based upon; therefore it is strongly discouraged among those people, believing that hate speech would only ruin America’s image in front of the world who regard the United States highly. Nonetheless, in an article written by Eugene Volokh, titled No, there’s no ‘hate speech’ exception in the First Amendment, he argues “Hateful ideas…are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas.” This has become one of the leading argumentative points against the opponents of hate speech. Supporters of hate speech assert that there is no literal statement in the First Amendment declaring that hate speech should be condemned or made illegal, and any other interpretation would be based solely on opinions and objectives. Up until this day, there has not been a final decision on whether to ban or encourage hate speech; moreover, many cases throughout history have been used as references to that topic, and sadly, many individuals have fallen victims to it. One of those cases is the Nationalist Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie.
Also known as Smith v.

Collin or the Skokie Affair, the NSPA v. Skokie is one of the well-known examples of hate speech. It was a United States Supreme Court case deciding on whether to allow the Nationalist Socialist Party of America to march through Skokie, Illinois, a village of approximately 70,000 persons in which one of every six residents is a Holocaust survivor, wearing Nazi uniforms or displaying swastikas. The leader of the party, Frank Collin, informed Skokie officials “that the purpose of the demonstration was to protest the Skokie Park District's ordinance requiring a bond of $350,000 to be posted prior to the issuance of a park permit” ("National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie.") He also mentioned, “the demonstrators would not make derogatory public statements and would cooperate with reasonable police instructions.” However, residents of the village protested saying that there is no guarantee this will not lead to violence, and so the march should be stopped. Surprisingly, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the swastikas are part of free speech, meaning they have the right to be protected under the First Amendment. The Court further constituted that the swastikas are not considered “fighting words,” which are “face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific [people and] are likely to start an immediate fight” ("No, There's No ‘hate Speech’ Exception to the First Amendment.") and ultimately concluded that the Party had the right to march through the village. Eventually, the NSPA did not continue with their march through the village after some Holocaust survivors set up a museum on Main Street of Skokie in remembrance of those who lost their lives in Nazi concentration camps. While it is true that the Court classified the swastikas as symbols of free speech and were allowed to be used in the march, marching in a predominantly Jewish village with a hostile symbol, knowing the history between Nazis and Jews, makes people

reconsider its symbolism in that particular event.
The swastika has been present for over 3,000 years and according to the Jewish Virtual Library website, the swastika symbolized “life, sun, power, [and] strength.” In addition, it was used as shoulder patches found on members of the Finnish air force and the American 45th Division. It was a positive symbol and was used for good luck. However, in the mid-19th century the Nazis began using the symbol, and this is when its connotation changed. Furthermore, on August, 7, 1920, Hitler, describing the new flag in his book Mein Kampf, said that “the swastika symbolized the victory of the Aryan man” ("The Nazi Party: The Swastika.") The Aryans are Indo-European speakers who include the Germans. Hitler’s description was not just utterly inequitable and prejudicial to Jews but it also changed the initial meaning and symbolism of the swastika. The swastika, a once peaceful, favorable sign, began to be associated with hate groups and horrific events like the neo-Nazis and the Holocaust.
Knowing the history of the transition of the swastika sign for a positive to a negative meaning would have to had been taken under consideration when the Illinois Supreme Court was making its decision, giving the NSPA permission to march through the Skokie village. And their final decision, which seemed unfair to many Jews living in that village and the surrounding area, was based on the fact that the symbol was not part of the “fighting words.” However, according to the definition of “fighting words” (any insult that could start an instant fight) mentioned above, the swastika, in that case, could have easily started a fracas, because this symbol could have hurt the feelings of those Holocaust survivors and bring back many of their horrendous memories they had of that dreadful time. Therefore, that marching, whether the NSPA admits it or not, had a much more deeper meaning and cause than what they (the NSPA) claimed. This march resembled the hate most of the Nazis had for the Jews back in the mid-19th to 20th centuries. For this reason, the Jews of the Skokie village had every right to disagree and even protest the march of the NSPA, as it was their time and right to live in a tranquil environment without having to be reminded of their hurtful and tragic past.
Not only did the march brought back treacherous memories to the Holocaust survivors of the village, but also the logic behind the march made it even more discouraging for them to march. Members of the NSPA followed Hitler’s ideas of “white power,” which portrayed them as a radical, racist group, believing that they have the ultimate power over other races including the Jews. This became evident as Frank Collin stated after the march, “I used it [the First Amendment] at Skokie. I planned the reaction of the Jews. They are hysterical” ("The Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America :: Legal Law.") Apparently Collin did not realize the length of his immorality and the pain he was causing the Jews at that time. After the march, one of the villagers stated, “The Nazis delight in creating fright and havoc among Jews.” The protesting marchers made people question the morals behind the NSPA and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a supporter of the NSPA who represent the Nazis. After statements from both the villagers and protestors, people realized that while the NSPA has the right to express themselves through freedom of speech and assembly, there is more at stake if they continued with their march, as the question now becomes a matter of morals than it is of rights. Not only will it affect the Jews, but it will also portray the United States as hostile, as it supports the racist group who once tortured the Jews at concentration camps. Moreover, the museum, built by some of the Holocaust survivors in remembrance of those who lost their lives at the concentration camps, made the majority of the people supports the Skokie villagers, and with that large number of Jew supporters the march came to an end before the marchers’ desired timing ("National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie.") The fact that many of the citizens supported the villagers and not the marchers’ right of assembly and their freedom of speech made it clear that when it comes to morality and rights, the majority of the United States citizens choose morals.
The case of the Nationalist Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie brings up the topic of prioritization. It questions whether holding on to morals is more important than holding on to the rights that are protected and given to every citizen of the United States through the Constitution, or vice versa. At the same time, the case encourages people to investigate and question the hidden motive of any action taken (in this case it was the motive of the marchers that was being questioned and taken under consideration.) And while the topic of hate speech is still debatable, this case has made it a bit more clearer and easier for people to decide whether they are “pro” hate speech or against it. Cases such as these are valuable to this country’s history because they later become great references for the future generations to develop their moral and value system despite the side they choose to support. Georges Bataille, a French intellectual and literary figure, once said, “The essence of morality is a questioning about morality.” Every citizen and individual living in the United States has the ability to question what is true and what is flawed. Furthermore, he/she can later decide whether he/she stands against or is a supporter of that particular topic identified previously as correct or false. In the NSPA v. Skokie case, the majority of the people sided with the Jews after questioning the moral matter in the case and hearing the defense statements from both the marchers and the villagers. This brings another essential topic, and that is the importance of hearing and taking into consideration what any two opposing sides have to say when it comes to siding with either one of them. This prevents manipulation from either side and allows the individual’s choice to be entirely up to them. When looking on the topic from another perspective, this also shows the privilege the United States gives its citizens, as not many people from other countries around the world get to enjoy these same rights and privileges given to them through the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson once declared these rights saying, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Undoubtedly, part of pursuing happiness is the ability to side with whatever believes and ideologies one desires.