• boramalper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    People used to defend to the death others’ right to say things (that they may even disagree with): National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie

    […] The injunction was granted, prohibiting marchers at the proposed Skokie rally from wearing Nazi uniforms or displaying swastikas. On behalf of the NSPA, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the injunction. The ACLU assigned civil rights attorneys David Goldberger and Burton Joseph to Collin’s cases. The ACLU argued that the injunction violated the First Amendment rights of the marchers to express themselves. The ACLU challenge was unsuccessful at the lower court level.

    The ACLU appealed on behalf of NSPA, but both the Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court refused to expedite the case or to stay the injunction. The ACLU then appealed that refusal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

    Here is the interesting bit:

    • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 hours ago

      According to Nadine Strossen, the case was part of a gradual process in the 20th century where the Court strengthened First Amendment protections and narrowed down the application of earlier decisions which upheld restrictions of free speech, in part due to the realisation that the Illinois restrictions on Nazi “hate speech” were so broad they could have been equally used to prohibit Martin Luther King Jr. demonstrations in Skokie.

      People so quick to applaud censorship need to consider how their arguments can work against them to.