On October 4, 1976 a neo-Nazi group sent letters to Chicago suburbs asking for permits to hold a white power rally (after their attempts to do so in Chicago itself were blocked). While many of the suburbs simply ignored the request the village of Skokie sought an injunction. Skokie is a suburb with a substantial Jewish population -- many of which were Holocaust survivors. In addition to the injunction the village passed laws to prevent such demonstrations in the future. These laws prohibited wearing military-style uniforms in demonstrations, prohibiting the distribution literature that included hate speech, and requiring a $350, 000 insurance bond. All these restrictios made it impossible for the neo-Nazis to hold the rally.
Are these restrictions justified? What would Mill say? Do you agree?
The restrictions put in place about a group of people not being able to express themselves is justified when it has harmful intent. The laws put in place by Skokie about neo-Nazis is justified because there are numerous Holocaust survivors or descendants in the area. Wearing provocative clothing and holding flags infringes on the people’s safety. People can express what they want, and “human beings should be free to form opinions and to express their opinions without reserve…unless this liberty is either conceded or asserted in spite of prohibition” (Mill p.53). Anyone can express their beliefs even if they’re heavily frowned upon or in this case illegal. However, protesting in Skokie has no direct harm towards the Jewish community in the area. It should not be illegal to express one’s opinions and thoughts, yet a protest is a planned group of people going against something. The neo-Nazis could have protested in their own homes or on a field. The location in which the protest took place mattered a lot when expressing such an opinion. Since this act was “asserted in spite of prohibition” the government in Skokie has all the justification they need to implement the laws prohibiting this kind of activism. These people did not protest there since it was convenient they chose a populous Jewish area to impose their believes and instill fear into the neighborhood’s hearts. Lastly, in mills argument he planned for such an occurrence implying that people should not be allowed to express their opinions and beliefs if it directly harms others or a targeted group.
ReplyDeleteThe restrictions were justified because the Neo-Nazis were demonstrating a rally with hateful and negative intentions. The ideas of Nazism aren’t right in any form or sense so there isn’t a direct reason to hold a rally if the intentions were to make the ideology of something bad public. Also, they could have easily rallied in their suburbs and or traveled to other locations where the feeling of their belief might have been more frowned upon. Mills' opinion on this would be free expression is where one can express themselves however they like unless it harms others once the harm is inflicted mentally or physically then that expression must be withheld. On page 53 in On Liberty Mills says “human beings should be free to form opinions and to express their opinions without reserve…unless this liberty is either conceded or asserted in spite of prohibition.” In this case, the Nazis wanted to instill fear in a particular part of the population of Skokie because they know how prevalent the Jewish population is there. To me, I believe the restrictions were justified because there shouldn’t be a reason for them to rally in the suburbs of Chicago, especially in Skokie. I agree people can do whatever they want if they so please even if I don’t agree with their point of view because I grew up in a Christian household where I love the sinner and not the sinner, however, while the Neo-Nazis can hold a rally, they don’t need to have it in public where it clearly will instill harm and forcefully impose an idea that is clearly harmful and hateful towards groups of people.
ReplyDeleteThe restrictions that the city of Skokie put in place were justified as they were a repellent to the possible and realistic harm that could've been directed to their Jewish community. As a suburb, home to many affect by the harmful message of Neo-Nazis, it is their responsibility to protect those people from people actively trying to dispute their existence by inciting violence and other acts of harm. In this case, however, Mill might have a split opinion. On one hand, he would suggest that the only way to progress as a community and society is to acknowledge these radical beliefs, as suppression of those ideas would effectively prevent society from uncovering the inherently false or harmful ideas that Neo-Nazis are trying to distribute. On the other hand, Mill would bring up the harm to others principle. In this, he would note that if the intention of the rally was to harm people or did harm people, then it should be restricted. I tend to agree with Mill on the two aforementioned points. Allowing these harmful beliefs to be debated against can only make the moral side stronger. The only way to truly understand why something is adopted as morally wrong is to realize how ridiculous the other side is. I also align with Skokie's actions to provide a more secure environment to their citizens guiding them away from harm. In the end, one could say that Skokie's actions inhibited from free speech, however, unlike Mill, I think that the intention should be absolutely assessed to identify harmful determination, taking safety precautions if necessary.
ReplyDeleteThe restrictions Skokie placed on the neo-Nazi rally, though understandable, are not justified under Mill’s harm principle. Mill argues that “the worth of a state in the long run is the worth of the individuals composing it” (On Liberty, pg 118), and that includes individuals whose views we find disgusting. His point is that by banning speech based on its content or emotional impact, we risk weakening the very foundation of free society. Mill doesn’t claim all speech is good or morally equal, and in fact he actually says some opinions are “false” and “pernicious.” However, still insists that they must be allowed to be expressed becuase of their status of opinions, in spite of their harmful content. That’s for a couple of reasons, but most applicable here is because suppressing speech won't make it go away, but rather drive it underground and remove the possibility of public refutation. Even though Skokie’s population had very real, very personal reasons to oppose the rally, Mill would likely argue that emotional harm — no matter how deep — is not sufficient grounds for censorship and transgression of fundemental tennants of his philosophy. Physical harm, incitement to violence, or actual threats would change the adjudication on the mater, but the restrictions Skokie imposed (banning uniforms, requiring huge insurance bonds, outlawing hate literature) seem more aimed at making the rally logistically impossible rather than protecting public safety in a narrowly defined sense. And that’s a problem, by allowing the state to silence one hateful group today, we set a precedent that could be used to silence any unpopular group tomorrow.
ReplyDelete