On April 26, 2009 in Phoenix, Oregon, there was a peaceful protest on the street against the National Socialist movement. It was a protest for love, which was met by opposition on the other side of the street. The small opposition group had skinheads waving around their version of the American flag, mutilated with Nazi sign in the middle. The protest was peaceful in the fact that nobody got physically hurt, but as Nicole Strykowski said, the Nazi symbol has become a hurtful symbol. Although they have the right to protest and march through their right to assembly.
“The common good over self interest.” That is the dark bolded line of the National Socialist Movement’s 25 Point Party Thesis. This group is more commonly known as the neo-Nazis who are often identifiable as skinheads. They work to protect America for the Americans. Of course, they hate the Jews, homosexuals, (in fact, it is clearly stated that anyone seeking membership cannot be a Jew or a homosexual) colored people, racial traitors, illegal immigrants…and regular immigrants. Soo basically, everyone! They hate everyone, and the only true superior race is the “American race” are those of European ancestry. Sound familiar? According to history, there was the Holocaust and the enslavement of the African people. Both of these came about due to the belief that one race is superior to all others.
The Fighting words doctrine perplexes me. It includes the “lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” as stated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. In the case of Chaplinsky v. Fighting words does not apply to symbols though. Even in the case of burning a cross on someone’s lawn, does not qualify for the fighting words doctrine. (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul) New Hampshire, Chaplinsky was a Jehovah’s witness who verbally berated a town marshal calling him things such as, “a damned facist.” There was no immediate breach of peace, in fact, I think it was a big deal because he said insulting words to an authority. When the protestors for the NSM are saying that people of different colors, creeds, and sexualities are not real Americans and that the Aryan Americans will prevail, it is inherently threatening. Again, given our world history, this is how it all starts. Their words during protests sometimes incite immediate breaches of peace, but should there be no regulation? We need to keep in mind that Hitler started off the same way.
I think that the fighting words doctrine does not do enough, because it is difficult to apply to cases due to its strict definition and the Supreme Court’s decisions in accordance to the doctrine. In Cohen v. California, Cohen was arrested for wearing a jacket that said, “Fuck the draft.” The Supreme Court ruled that it still fell under protected speech and did not constitute fighting words. What if Cohen’s jacket had said Fuck the Jews? I think it would still be ruled protected speech, which bothers me. I think that Neo-nazis do have the right to assemble peacefully, but what about burning crosses and hating everyone else is peaceful?
I agree with you in believing that Neo-Nazis do have a right to assemble peacefully. I do not agree with their racist and sexist views though. But at the same time, I am sure they would not agree with my own viewpoints. So there’s a fine line when it comes to political correctness versus content regulation. I discuss this binary in my own blog posting for this week. Should racist and sexist speech that could or could not incite violent reactions be unprotected under the First Amendment? If it were to be unprotected, the Neo-Nazis would have a far more difficult time attempting to receive a permit to assemble. Furthermore, the government would begin to regulate speech and to a further extent viewpoints that do not uphold narratives of political correctness. This I believe is the ultimate threat to democratic values. However, I am forced to wonder whether everyone within the United States does in fact have access to the same rights. The First Amendment along with the Fourteenth Amendment strive to create a context of equality where everyone has a right to speak what they desire (albeit some restrictions) and where everyone is warranted equal protection under the law. But do these amendments actually gloss over other structural systems in place that serve to uphold racial and class hierarchies? If so, poverty and educational failure become attached to the personal decisions of people instead of analyzing the role of structural systems that may actually carry on the status quo. It is difficult to believe that we are all equal under the law because we are not warranted the same opportunities. It is also difficult to undo the long history of racism as exemplified through slavery, segregation, lynching, etc…But it begins with addressing these issues and working together to find a sound solution.
I agree with you in believing that Neo-Nazis do have a right to assemble peacefully. I do not agree with their racist and sexist views though. But at the same time, I am sure they would not agree with my own viewpoints. So there’s a fine line when it comes to political correctness versus content regulation. I discuss this binary in my own blog posting for this week. Should racist and sexist speech that could or could not incite violent reactions be unprotected under the First Amendment? If it were to be unprotected, the Neo-Nazis would have a far more difficult time attempting to receive a permit to assemble. Furthermore, the government would begin to regulate speech and to a further extent viewpoints that do not uphold narratives of political correctness. This I believe is the ultimate threat to democratic values. However, I am forced to wonder whether everyone within the United States does in fact have access to the same rights. The First Amendment along with the Fourteenth Amendment strive to create a context of equality where everyone has a right to speak what they desire (albeit some restrictions) and where everyone is warranted equal protection under the law. But do these amendments actually gloss over other structural systems in place that serve to uphold racial and class hierarchies? If so, poverty and educational failure become attached to the personal decisions of people instead of analyzing the role of structural systems that may actually carry on the status quo. It is difficult to believe that we are all equal under the law because we are not warranted the same opportunities. It is also difficult to undo the long history of racism as exemplified through slavery, segregation, lynching, etc…But it begins with addressing these issues and working together to find a sound solution.
ReplyDelete