Opinion: In defending neo-Nazis, the ACLU stands up for the free speech rights of everyone

To the editor: Surprisingly, Lauren Weinrib’s criticism of the ACLU’s longstanding policy of defending the free speech rights of groups that espouse hateful and offensive ideologies totally overlooks the lessons learned from a pivotal episode in the ACLU’s history. (“The ACLU’s free speech stance should be about social justice, not ‘timeless’ principles,” Opinion, Aug. 30)

In 1978, the ACLU defended a group of American neo-Nazis who sought to march in Skokie, Ill., a predominantly Jewish community. In upholding the ACLU’s legal position, the federal appellate court held that the “result we have reached is dictated by the fundamental proposition that if these civil rights are to remain vital for all, they must protect not only those society deems acceptable, but also those whose ideas it quite justifiably rejects and despises.”

If Skokie had succeeded in blocking the Nazi march, it would have set a dangerous precedent that could have been used by cities in the South to blog civil rights protests, among other possibilities.

Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, called the outcome of the Skokie controversy “one of the truly great victories for the First Amendment in American history.” He further wrote: “It proved that the rule of law must and can prevail. Because of our profound commitment to the principle of free expression even in the excruciatingly painful circumstances of Skokie more than thirty years ago, we remain today the international symbol of free speech.”

Stephen F. Rohde, Los Angeles

The writer is a constitutional lawyer.

..

To the editor: Adlai Stevenson once remarked that his definition of a free society was one in which it was safe to be unpopular.

Granted, Nazis, neo or otherwise, have a hateful philosophy. That said, are we people who allow free speech only for those who never offend people we like? Do we support free speech as long as it’s popular, but censor it when the speakers are followers of a Charlie Chaplin cosplayer?

No, we should support free speech for the hateful, lest we become the hateful without knowing it.

David Hendershot, Fullerton

..

To the editor: Allowing “free speech” that hurts or denigrates others is not in my opinion in everyone’s best interest.

The Criminal Code of Canada prohibits hate speech propaganda. Perhaps this more balanced approach could have prevented the debacle in Charlottesville, Va.

Roberta Gillerman, Los Angeles

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook