FREE ESSAY ON VILLAGE OF SKOKIE VS. THE ACLU

VILLAGE OF SKOKIE VS. THE ACLU

Skokie
In the case of Village of Skokie vs. The ACLU(American Civil Liberties Union) I would
definitely stand with the ACLU. The ACLU was defending the First Amendment Right. They
were not defending the Nazis. We might not agree with what the Nazis are saying but, they
still have a right to say it.
Herb Lewison of the ACLU and the attorney for Collin stated to the judge "Your Honor,
this is a simple First Amendment case. The Village of Skokie seeks and order, preventing
the exercise of free speech before the speech has even occurred, in spite of the fact
that it has been proposed as an orderly exercise, taking place for only 20 minutes on
public property in front of the Skokie Municipal Building." This section of the quote
from Herb Lewison is simply saying that Skokie is just trying take away the first
amendment right of the Nazis. Everything that they are asking for falls within their
first amendment right. All they are just proposing is an orderly march. An orderly march
for 20 minutes on public property. This is okay in my opinion because everything is
offensive to someone. But you still have the right to voice your opinion.
The second quote Lewison states is, "This is a classic case in which government officials
are asking a court of equity to impose a prior restraint on the speech of persons
advocating unpopular ideas." Lewison is saying in this part of his summary argument that
the government is asking the court to issue a prior restraint on the speech because they
don't agree with their ideas. Another part of his quote states "The Village of Skokie has
shown only that the political views of Collin and his party are offensive and outrageous,
which of course they are. They have failed to show any reason that the defendant planned
to engage in any sort of illegal activity whatsoever." Lewison shows a very good
understanding of the case he is involved in. He knows that Collin's views are stupid and
have no place in society. But Collin has made no threats to do anything illegal in his
rally or march. All of the threats of violence have been made against him understandably.
I strongly support Herb Lewison on this case.
One of the best quotes in this whole legal battle came from the Judge who said, "I
believe he (Collin) intends to make trouble, to incite to riots and cause bodily harm.
The Constitution certainly doesn't give a person like Collin the right to come into a
peaceful community and cause violence". The Judge is looking at this from a point of view
that most people would it is a very good analysis of what Collin intends to do. I
understand the Judge on his standpoint but, like Lewison said he has not made any threat
of illegal activity. I still say Collin has the right to speak under the First
Amendment.
I support the ACLU. No matter how brainless your statements might be you have the right
to say it. If I wanted to say something and someone doesn't agree should I not be allowed
to say it, truth or no truth to what I'm saying.