The "Moderate" PLO?

[JackC]

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=669

This is filth. It's important to know what is being said in the Mid-East that is not intended for western consumption.

[pizza]

Western minds have difficulty grasping the impact these religious sermons have on the Muslims who hear them. This is not an unusual example. They continue unabated every week. Why is it so hard to understand that these people have no interest whatsoever in making peace with Jews when that's what they are taught by their religious leaders and political leaders who encourage these sermons to be broadcast on PA media? Their society is sick from the top on down.

[Ralph]

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=669

This is filth. It's important to know what is being said in the Mid-East that is not intended for western consumption.

*****

It's racist filth all right. But is the anwer to not work towards enforceable accords to bring stability to the region and agreater degree of safety for Israel?

Thirty years ago I saw similar crap in the U.S. from the Black Muslims and the Black Panthers. I know it's not a simple parallel because of the power these Muslim clerics have and the absence of free and democratic opposition. But I don't think that these anti-Semitic assaults should dominate the discussion.

[Ted]

Western minds have difficulty grasping the impact these religious sermons have on the Muslims who hear them.

This where the other side of the coin rears its ugly head.
Sewage like this makes me forget about my NY liberality and puts me in the same boat as you.

[Ralph]

Western minds have difficulty grasping the impact these religious sermons have on the Muslims who hear them.

This where the other side of the coin rears its ugly head.
Sewage like this makes me forget about my NY liberality and puts me in the same boat as you.

*****

Go to Times Square on most days and you can encounter a small group of black men announcing the same creed. They've been there for a while and even the media is bored with them.

[JackC]

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=669

This is filth. It's important to know what is being said in the Mid-East that is not intended for western consumption.

*****

It's racist filth all right. But is the anwer to not work towards enforceable accords to bring stability to the region and agreater degree of safety for Israel?

Thirty years ago I saw similar crap in the U.S. from the Black Muslims and the Black Panthers. I know it's not a simple parallel because of the power these Muslim clerics have and the absence of free and democratic opposition. But I don't think that these anti-Semitic assaults should dominate the discussion.

I didn't say that there should not be an attempt to bring peace. Nor do I think that Israel is entitled to all the territory that some people think it should retain.

But the fact is that there isn't a country in the world, other than the US, that gives a rat's *ss about whether Israel was wiped off the map. It lives in a "neighborhood" in which calls are made daily for its destruction and for the genocide of Jews, and there is no real attempt by the governments, who control all speech in these countries, to stop it. To the contrary!

It is not at all clear that real peace is possible, and it is not anything that is happening in Israel that makes me think that. In fact, I don't have any doubt about the sacrifices that Israel would make for real peace. I am not at all convinced that its neighbors really want it.

[Ted]

Go to Times Square on most days and you can encounter a small group of black men announcing the same creed. They've been there for a while and even the media is bored with them.

Ralph
You’re such a spoil sport

But the facts are that there isn't a country in the world, other than the US, that gives a rat's *ss about whether Israel was wiped off the map.

Jack
True, but I still think Israel should bend over backwards ( within reason and taking her own defense into account) and at least push in a positive direction.

[pizza]

Western minds have difficulty grasping the impact these religious sermons have on the Muslims who hear them.

This where the other side of the coin rears its ugly head.
Sewage like this makes me forget about my NY liberality and puts me in the same boat as you.

My red line was crossed in '78 when those I had trusted and supported made it possible for Nazis to march among Holocaust victims. I never looked back.

[Ted]

made it possible for Nazis to march among Holocaust victims.

Where was this P?
Please elaborate

[JackC]

made it possible for Nazis to march among Holocaust victims.

Where was this P?
Please elaborate

Remember Skokie, Illinois?

There is no shortage of places to spew filth in this country. Ruling that neo-Nazis were entilted to spew it in the face of Holocaust survivors was shameful. These are people who went through, and survived, hell on earth and who were told they had to allow these monstors into their community to remind them of how "they got what they deserved".

The ACLU lost a lot of members because of that, and rightfully so. We place reasonable restrictions on speech all the time. There are no absolutes, even under the first amendment, and being in favor of free speech doesn't mean that you have to surrender your judgment and your decency.

[pizza]

Fortunately the Nazis didn't march in Skokie when it came to crunch. There were several thousand people waiting to confront them and they turned tail. Nevertheless, many who had suffered the unspeakable had to endure it again, and there were those who were severely traumatized by the entire episode.

It was that event and the litigation leading to it that caused me to reassess my philosophies and beliefs in liberalism. I eventually concluded that principles, however noble, are designed to serve the legitimate needs of people rather than the converse.

[Ted]

Remember Skokie, Illinois?

I do indeed

Of course there is the old adage that says Harboring Resentment is like taking poison and expecting someone else to get sick.

I don’t expect anyone to change their mind on the basis of that spiritual axiom, but I sometimes feel a bit perplexed at the duality of religious people who, if they follow the tenets of their religious teachings would rather forgive than be forgiven
End of sermon
t

[Ralph]

The Nazis had every right under the First Amendment to march in Skokie no matter how offensive their presence would have been to the residents. And those whites who lawfully protested against integration with vile curses also were entitled to do so.

It's correct that the ACLU lost many members over its support of the Skokie marchers. Many were Jews who when it came down to it couldn't support the First Amendment over their own genuine and understandable issues.

I think Skokie was one of the ACLU's finest moments. The First Amendment does not allow government to decide which speech is too offensive or which parades or demonstrations are too hurtful. I don't find that to be a "liberal" view: to me it's the essence of principled conservatism. The government is mandated by the Constitution to be neutral and I doubt a single current justice would have upheld Skokie's attempt to bar the march.

Lastly, just for the record, the Nazis never intended to march in Skokie. They were using the threat to get a permit to demonstrate elsewhere (in Chicago). The logic has always escaped me but the record supports that.

[JackC]

Remember Skokie, Illinois?

I do indeed

Of course there is the old adage that says Harboring Resentment is like taking poison and expecting someone else to get sick.

I don’t expect anyone to change their mind on the basis of that spiritual axiom, but I sometimes feel a bit perplexed at the duality of religious people who, if they follow the tenets of their religious teachings would rather forgive than be forgiven
End of sermon
t

Asking Holocaust survivors not to "harbor resentment" against and to "forgive" the Nazis in this context simply is beyond me. Whatever peace they can realize in their lives is well deserved. They should not be tested in any way by having this filth shoved in their face. It is the neo-Nazis that need the lecture here.

[Ralph]

I agree with Jack that no one has the right to ask victims of Nazism or plain murder to forgive anyone. That does or does not come. It sure wouldn't come from me.

That's totally separate from a century of First Amendment jurisprudence that denies to government ANY form of content control with regard to what demonstrations or marches can be rejected by government.

I have no problem with people who argue for a more restrictive reading of the First Amendment - I hear that from some students every semester, especially those from other countries. What is annoying is the refusal of some to simply acknowledge what the law is and the decision in Skokie is clearly compatible with First Amendment doctrine. It's not a legal blip although the notoriety certainly left it on the Free Speech historical map.

[Ted]

I agree with Jack that no one has the right to ask victims of Nazism or plain murder to forgive anyone.

So do I.
Naturally I wasn’t talking about the Nazis, but I was referring to the overall spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation visa vie the mid-east…
This is more theoretical than pragmatic, I will give you that.

[Kevin R]

There are time, manner and place restrictions in many First Amendment matters. The message Collin and his group of neo-Nazis wanted to articulate would not have been altered (or censored) in the slightest way if they were told Skokie was off limits.

[pizza]

The Nazis had every right under the First Amendment to march in Skokie no matter how offensive their presence would have been to the residents. And those whites who lawfully protested against integration with vile curses also were entitled to do so.

It's correct that the ACLU lost many members over its support of the Skokie marchers. Many were Jews who when it came down to it couldn't support the First Amendment over their own genuine and understandable issues.

I think Skokie was one of the ACLU's finest moments. The First Amendment does not allow government to decide which speech is too offensive or which parades or demonstrations are too hurtful. I don't find that to be a "liberal" view: to me it's the essence of principled conservatism. The government is mandated by the Constitution to be neutral and I doubt a single current justice would have upheld Skokie's attempt to bar the march.

Lastly, just for the record, the Nazis never intended to march in Skokie. They were using the threat to get a permit to demonstrate elsewhere (in Chicago). The logic has always escaped me but the record supports that.

There is a tremendous difference between the civil rights marches of the '60s and the clearly stated attempt by the Nazis to march in Skokie among the highest concentration of Holocaust victims in the country. The civil rights marches were neither designed nor intended to cause pain and anguish to white supremacists; they were intended to raise the consciousness of Americans to the inequalities and injustices of Jim Crow. The only purpose the Nazis had for selecting Skokie as a Nazi marching venue was to cause additional pain and suffering to Holocaust victims.

Even under Brandenburg v. Ohio a case could have been made to stop the Nazis from marching. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a well-recognized medical syndrome. Indeed there were those who suffered it as a result of that travesty of justice and some were actually hospitalized. But of course, that slightly inconvenient fact escapes the liberal consciousness where implementing a precious right or doctrine on behalf of the most vile of creatures takes precedence over matters of sensitivity to genuine and legitimate human needs as well as over matters of conscience.

[pizza]

Lastly, just for the record, the Nazis never intended to march in Skokie. They were using the threat to get a permit to demonstrate elsewhere (in Chicago). The logic has always escaped me but the record supports that.

Your attempt at historic revisionism notwithstanding, the Nazis fully intended to march in Skokie. I was present with many others that morning at the junction of Edens Highway and the Dempster Avenue exit to Skokie when their motorcade was met by the Skokie Police and the press. The Nazis asked about police protection and were told they would receive it to the extent possible and that the quality of protection was circumscribed by the size of their force and by other necessities of deployment, and that they did not intend to augment their force with police from other venues. They were told what to expect by way of confrontation if they continued. They conferred and then told the press they had accomplished what they had intended, turned around and left.

[Ralph]

Lastly, just for the record, the Nazis never intended to march in Skokie. They were using the threat to get a permit to demonstrate elsewhere (in Chicago). The logic has always escaped me but the record supports that.

Your attempt at historic revisionism notwithstanding, the Nazis fully intended to march in Skokie. I was present with many others that morning at the junction of Edens Highway and the Dempster Avenue exit to Skokie when their motorcade was met by the Skokie Police and the press. The Nazis asked about police protection and were told they would receive it to the extent possible and that the quality of protection was circumscribed by the size of their force and by other necessities of deployment, and that they did not intend to augment their force with police from other venues. They were told what to expect by way of confrontation if they continued. They conferred and then told the press they had accomplished what they had intended, turned around and left.

*****

A disagreement about facts isn't an attempt at "historical revisionism." In any event since I believe they had every right to march, it isn't particularly relevant.

My version is accepted in numerous Constitutional Law casebooks and articles, e.g., Stone et al, Constitutional Law (Fifth ed. 2005).

[pizza]

Lastly, just for the record, the Nazis never intended to march in Skokie. They were using the threat to get a permit to demonstrate elsewhere (in Chicago). The logic has always escaped me but the record supports that.

Your attempt at historic revisionism notwithstanding, the Nazis fully intended to march in Skokie. I was present with many others that morning at the junction of Edens Highway and the Dempster Avenue exit to Skokie when their motorcade was met by the Skokie Police and the press. The Nazis asked about police protection and were told they would receive it to the extent possible and that the quality of protection was circumscribed by the size of their force and by other necessities of deployment, and that they did not intend to augment their force with police from other venues. They were told what to expect by way of confrontation if they continued. They conferred and then told the press they had accomplished what they had intended, turned around and left.

*****

A disagreement about facts isn't an attempt at "historical revisionism." In any event since I believe they had every right to march, it isn't particularly relevant.

My version is accepted in numerous Constitutional Law casebooks and articles, e.g., Stone et al, Constitutional Law (Fifth ed. 2005).

Since when are Con Law casebooks relied upon as sources for historical fact? Colin called off the Skokie march two days before it was to have taken place, but the Nazis still showed up at the highway entrance with a small contingent. Several days later they marched in Marquette Park, Chicago.

[Ralph]

Lastly, just for the record, the Nazis never intended to march in Skokie. They were using the threat to get a permit to demonstrate elsewhere (in Chicago). The logic has always escaped me but the record supports that.

Your attempt at historic revisionism notwithstanding, the Nazis fully intended to march in Skokie. I was present with many others that morning at the junction of Edens Highway and the Dempster Avenue exit to Skokie when their motorcade was met by the Skokie Police and the press. The Nazis asked about police protection and were told they would receive it to the extent possible and that the quality of protection was circumscribed by the size of their force and by other necessities of deployment, and that they did not intend to augment their force with police from other venues. They were told what to expect by way of confrontation if they continued. They conferred and then told the press they had accomplished what they had intended, turned around and left.

*****

A disagreement about facts isn't an attempt at "historical revisionism." In any event since I believe they had every right to march, it isn't particularly relevant.

My version is accepted in numerous Constitutional Law casebooks and articles, e.g., Stone et al, Constitutional Law (Fifth ed. 2005).

Since when are Con Law casebooks relied upon as sources for historical fact? You can pick up any contemporary Chicago newspaper and read what happened. Colin called off the march two days before it was to have taken place, but the Nazis still showed up with a small contingent of followers.

*****

Actually casebooks often, these days, are quite scholarly and the authors of the one to which I cited are at the top of the Con Law scholarship food chain.

But I'm happy to accept your version of the facts since the issue is irrelevant anyway to the central question of controlling Constitutional Law.

Incidentally, while many people left the ACLU because of Skokie, including a number of your co-religionists, those unfamiliar with that episode should know that vastly more remained. People have a right to join or leave any organization but the ACLU emerged from that turbulent issue morally if not fiscally strogner. Just my opinion as a four-decade long ACLU stalwart.

Out of curiosity, since you mentioned you spend much time in Israel, have you been admitted to practice there? I had a funny picture of you haunting Tel Aviv pizza parlors looking for Med Mal plaintiffs.

[pizza]

I never applied for admission. If I had to make a living at med-mal in Israel, I'd be haunting pizza parlors for hand-outs. I don't know how lawyers practicing in medically related issues survive in Israel. As you know, the health-care delivery system is state-sponsored and Israel has no jury system.

[Ralph]

I never applied for admission. If I had to make a living at med-mal in Israel, I'd be haunting pizza parlors for hand-outs. I don't know how lawyers practicing in medically related issues survive in Israel. As you know, the health-care delivery system is state-sponsored and Israel has no jury system.

*****

Actually, no, I didn't realize Israel doesn't have juries.

[Yasser]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4565301.stm

[Donald Isler]

Yasser forwarded:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4565301.stm

This is certainly good news, if it is true.

[Ralph]

There are time, manner and place restrictions in many First Amendment matters. The message Collin and his group of neo-Nazis wanted to articulate would not have been altered (or censored) in the slightest way if they were told Skokie was off limits.

*****

Kevin,

I'm sorry but in this instance you simply do not know the law. Time, Manner and Place restrictions MUST be content neutral. If a place has historically been a "Public Forum," and virtually any street is, it can not be refused to any group. Time and Manner go to reasonable hours for use of the street (not 4AM in a residential area) and permissible equipment (the Supreme Court upheld a New York City regulation setting an upper limit on audio equipment but it had to apply to everyone).

On the other hand, there are many Supreme Court First Amendment decisions that specifically uphold the right to demonstrate at such locations as those so engaged believe will most

a) effectively
b) obnoxiously
c) disturbingly
d) All of the Above (correct answer)

convey their viewpoint.

Anyone here can believe the law should be different and so advocate but what I post is indisputably First Amendent doctrine. And I don't think Chief Justice Rehnquist or Justice Scalia have ever authored an opinion that disputes that doctrine. It's a clean sweep for the High Court.

[Ralph]

The Nazis had every right under the First Amendment to march in Skokie no matter how offensive their presence would have been to the residents. And those whites who lawfully protested against integration with vile curses also were entitled to do so.

It's correct that the ACLU lost many members over its support of the Skokie marchers. Many were Jews who when it came down to it couldn't support the First Amendment over their own genuine and understandable issues.

I think Skokie was one of the ACLU's finest moments. The First Amendment does not allow government to decide which speech is too offensive or which parades or demonstrations are too hurtful. I don't find that to be a "liberal" view: to me it's the essence of principled conservatism. The government is mandated by the Constitution to be neutral and I doubt a single current justice would have upheld Skokie's attempt to bar the march.

Lastly, just for the record, the Nazis never intended to march in Skokie. They were using the threat to get a permit to demonstrate elsewhere (in Chicago). The logic has always escaped me but the record supports that.

There is a tremendous difference between the civil rights marches of the '60s and the clearly stated attempt by the Nazis to march in Skokie among the highest concentration of Holocaust victims in the country. The civil rights marches were neither designed nor intended to cause pain and anguish to white supremacists; they were intended to raise the consciousness of Americans to the inequalities and injustices of Jim Crow. The only purpose the Nazis had for selecting Skokie as a Nazi marching venue was to cause additional pain and suffering to Holocaust victims.

Even under Brandenburg v. Ohio a case could have been made to stop the Nazis from marching. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a well-recognized medical syndrome. Indeed there were those who suffered it as a result of that travesty of justice and some were actually hospitalized. But of course, that slightly inconvenient fact escapes the liberal consciousness where implementing a precious right or doctrine on behalf of the most vile of creatures takes precedence over matters of sensitivity to genuine and legitimate human needs as well as over matters of conscience.

*****

Your very skillful attempt to make a Bradenburg argument wouldn't impress a single Supreme Court justice. Many decisions acknowledge the pain that demonstrations by First Amendment activists cause. It's not hard to believe that an American in a Nazi uniform could cause all kinds of stress and flashbacks to a passing Holocaust survivor anywhere, anyhow.

You forget that in order to uphold a content-based restriction of a public demonstration, the standard is strict scrutiny: a compelling government interest to be met with the most narrowly tailored means. It's possible some trial judge would find your argument attractive and even persuasive but he/she would be overturned on appeal.

[pizza]

The Nazis had every right under the First Amendment to march in Skokie no matter how offensive their presence would have been to the residents. And those whites who lawfully protested against integration with vile curses also were entitled to do so.

It's correct that the ACLU lost many members over its support of the Skokie marchers. Many were Jews who when it came down to it couldn't support the First Amendment over their own genuine and understandable issues.

I think Skokie was one of the ACLU's finest moments. The First Amendment does not allow government to decide which speech is too offensive or which parades or demonstrations are too hurtful. I don't find that to be a "liberal" view: to me it's the essence of principled conservatism. The government is mandated by the Constitution to be neutral and I doubt a single current justice would have upheld Skokie's attempt to bar the march.

Lastly, just for the record, the Nazis never intended to march in Skokie. They were using the threat to get a permit to demonstrate elsewhere (in Chicago). The logic has always escaped me but the record supports that.

There is a tremendous difference between the civil rights marches of the '60s and the clearly stated attempt by the Nazis to march in Skokie among the highest concentration of Holocaust victims in the country. The civil rights marches were neither designed nor intended to cause pain and anguish to white supremacists; they were intended to raise the consciousness of Americans to the inequalities and injustices of Jim Crow. The only purpose the Nazis had for selecting Skokie as a Nazi marching venue was to cause additional pain and suffering to Holocaust victims.

Even under Brandenburg v. Ohio a case could have been made to stop the Nazis from marching. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a well-recognized medical syndrome. Indeed there were those who suffered it as a result of that travesty of justice and some were actually hospitalized. But of course, that slightly inconvenient fact escapes the liberal consciousness where implementing a precious right or doctrine on behalf of the most vile of creatures takes precedence over matters of sensitivity to genuine and legitimate human needs as well as over matters of conscience.

*****

Your very skillful attempt to make a Bradenburg argument wouldn't impress a single Supreme Court justice. Many decisions acknowledge the pain that demonstrations by First Amendment activists cause. It's not hard to believe that an American in a Nazi uniform could cause all kinds of stress and flashbacks to a passing Holocaust survivor anywhere, anyhow.

You forget that in order to uphold a content-based restriction of a public demonstration, the standard is strict scrutiny: a compelling government interest to be met with the most narrowly tailored means. It's possible some trial judge would find your argument attractive and even persuasive but he/she would be overturned on appeal.

I wouldn't expect the Supreme Court to agree that the fragile health and well-being of a large demographic concentration of Holocaust victims should take precedence over the "right" of a few psychopaths to further damage it.

Is there no compelling governmental interest in stopping the spread or effects of the disease known as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?

See: http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/facts/general/ ... _ptsd.html

If the Nazis had intended to spread or intensify the effects of any other disease, such as typhoid fever or malaria within a particular segment of the population, do you suppose any rational court would allow it?

The possibility that the Supreme Court might be unimpressed with such a disastrous result reflects more upon the depths of moral and intellectual vacuity to which the Court has sunk than on the merits of my argument.

[Ralph]

The Nazis had every right under the First Amendment to march in Skokie no matter how offensive their presence would have been to the residents. And those whites who lawfully protested against integration with vile curses also were entitled to do so.

It's correct that the ACLU lost many members over its support of the Skokie marchers. Many were Jews who when it came down to it couldn't support the First Amendment over their own genuine and understandable issues.

I think Skokie was one of the ACLU's finest moments. The First Amendment does not allow government to decide which speech is too offensive or which parades or demonstrations are too hurtful. I don't find that to be a "liberal" view: to me it's the essence of principled conservatism. The government is mandated by the Constitution to be neutral and I doubt a single current justice would have upheld Skokie's attempt to bar the march.

Lastly, just for the record, the Nazis never intended to march in Skokie. They were using the threat to get a permit to demonstrate elsewhere (in Chicago). The logic has always escaped me but the record supports that.

There is a tremendous difference between the civil rights marches of the '60s and the clearly stated attempt by the Nazis to march in Skokie among the highest concentration of Holocaust victims in the country. The civil rights marches were neither designed nor intended to cause pain and anguish to white supremacists; they were intended to raise the consciousness of Americans to the inequalities and injustices of Jim Crow. The only purpose the Nazis had for selecting Skokie as a Nazi marching venue was to cause additional pain and suffering to Holocaust victims.

Even under Brandenburg v. Ohio a case could have been made to stop the Nazis from marching. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a well-recognized medical syndrome. Indeed there were those who suffered it as a result of that travesty of justice and some were actually hospitalized. But of course, that slightly inconvenient fact escapes the liberal consciousness where implementing a precious right or doctrine on behalf of the most vile of creatures takes precedence over matters of sensitivity to genuine and legitimate human needs as well as over matters of conscience.

*****

Your very skillful attempt to make a Bradenburg argument wouldn't impress a single Supreme Court justice. Many decisions acknowledge the pain that demonstrations by First Amendment activists cause. It's not hard to believe that an American in a Nazi uniform could cause all kinds of stress and flashbacks to a passing Holocaust survivor anywhere, anyhow.

You forget that in order to uphold a content-based restriction of a public demonstration, the standard is strict scrutiny: a compelling government interest to be met with the most narrowly tailored means. It's possible some trial judge would find your argument attractive and even persuasive but he/she would be overturned on appeal.

I wouldn't expect the unimpressive Supreme Court to agree that the fragile health and well-being of a large demographic concentration of Holocaust victims should take precedence over the "right" of a few psychopaths to further damage it.

Is there no compelling governmental interest in stopping the spread or effects of the disease known as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?

See: http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/facts/general/ ... _ptsd.html

If the Nazis had intended to spread or intensify the effects of any other disease, such as typhoid fever or malaria within a particular segment of the population, do you suppose any rational court would allow it?

*****

NO!!!!! With your argument the First Amendment would have as much value as the Free Speech guarantee in the late Soviet Constitution.

Equating the dissemination of pathogens with publicly espousing virulent ideas is bizarre - there's no First Amendment support for it in any modern decisions, not just the current bench.

While many Jews did leave the ACLU over Skokie, folks here may not know that many more didn't. Pizza creates a misleading impression that Jews (or any other cohort) were united with regard to the highly emotional issue of the Skokie proposed demonstration.

It amazes me that highly intelligent and competent people, including Pizza, basically can not comprehend controlling law whether they like it or not.

[pizza]

The Nazis had every right under the First Amendment to march in Skokie no matter how offensive their presence would have been to the residents. And those whites who lawfully protested against integration with vile curses also were entitled to do so.

It's correct that the ACLU lost many members over its support of the Skokie marchers. Many were Jews who when it came down to it couldn't support the First Amendment over their own genuine and understandable issues.

I think Skokie was one of the ACLU's finest moments. The First Amendment does not allow government to decide which speech is too offensive or which parades or demonstrations are too hurtful. I don't find that to be a "liberal" view: to me it's the essence of principled conservatism. The government is mandated by the Constitution to be neutral and I doubt a single current justice would have upheld Skokie's attempt to bar the march.

Lastly, just for the record, the Nazis never intended to march in Skokie. They were using the threat to get a permit to demonstrate elsewhere (in Chicago). The logic has always escaped me but the record supports that.

There is a tremendous difference between the civil rights marches of the '60s and the clearly stated attempt by the Nazis to march in Skokie among the highest concentration of Holocaust victims in the country. The civil rights marches were neither designed nor intended to cause pain and anguish to white supremacists; they were intended to raise the consciousness of Americans to the inequalities and injustices of Jim Crow. The only purpose the Nazis had for selecting Skokie as a Nazi marching venue was to cause additional pain and suffering to Holocaust victims.

Even under Brandenburg v. Ohio a case could have been made to stop the Nazis from marching. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a well-recognized medical syndrome. Indeed there were those who suffered it as a result of that travesty of justice and some were actually hospitalized. But of course, that slightly inconvenient fact escapes the liberal consciousness where implementing a precious right or doctrine on behalf of the most vile of creatures takes precedence over matters of sensitivity to genuine and legitimate human needs as well as over matters of conscience.

*****

Your very skillful attempt to make a Bradenburg argument wouldn't impress a single Supreme Court justice. Many decisions acknowledge the pain that demonstrations by First Amendment activists cause. It's not hard to believe that an American in a Nazi uniform could cause all kinds of stress and flashbacks to a passing Holocaust survivor anywhere, anyhow.

You forget that in order to uphold a content-based restriction of a public demonstration, the standard is strict scrutiny: a compelling government interest to be met with the most narrowly tailored means. It's possible some trial judge would find your argument attractive and even persuasive but he/she would be overturned on appeal.

I wouldn't expect the unimpressive Supreme Court to agree that the fragile health and well-being of a large demographic concentration of Holocaust victims should take precedence over the "right" of a few psychopaths to further damage it.

Is there no compelling governmental interest in stopping the spread or effects of the disease known as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?

See: http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/facts/general/ ... _ptsd.html

If the Nazis had intended to spread or intensify the effects of any other disease, such as typhoid fever or malaria within a particular segment of the population, do you suppose any rational court would allow it?

*****

NO!!!!! With your argument the First Amendment would have as much value as the Free Speech guarantee in the late Soviet Constitution.

Equating the dissemination of pathogens with publicly espousing virulent ideas is bizarre - there's no First Amendment support for it in any modern decisions, not just the current bench.

While many Jews did leave the ACLU over Skokie, folks here may not know that many more didn't. Pizza creates a misleading impression that Jews (or any other cohort) were united with regard to the highly emotional issue of the Skokie proposed demonstration.

It amazes me that highly intelligent and competent people, including Pizza, basically can not comprehend controlling law whether they like it or not.

It amazes me equally that you cannot comprehend that one disease is just as damaging as another and that their methods of dissemination are irrelevant to the human misery they will cause.

That more Jews remained in the ACLU after the debacle than before, if that be case, is irrelevant. History has repeatedly shown that any people, Jews included, can be their own worst enemies if they allow themselves to be guided by ideas that can change with the whims of the times, rather than by well-established principles of morality.

[Ralph]

Pizza,

Can you separate your fervent views about the Holocaust and its survivors (which I actually share whether you believe it or not-I grew up with KZ survivors and my parents barely got out intime)) from being able to analyze law within the confines of settled constitutional doctrine?

If you advocated amending the Constitution to limit current Free Speech rights I'd heartily disagree with you but not question that such a step is both possible and reflective of the seminal blueprint for the Constitution (that's what amendments are for-anything.

But you come up with theories of interpreting the First Amendment that have zero currency or intellectual or doctrinal support and when I show you the error of your ways, you make a comment about the current Supreme Court - sort of avoiding the law to attack the judges (hey, I've done that too).

I have no doubt that the degree of protected speech in the U.S. inflicts much harm on many people for many reasons. I'm also quite aware that much of what is fully protected here is criminal in most of Western Europe (I don't know enough to comment about Israel). I have foreign students from Holland and Belgium and France who split on how we view the Marketplace of Ideas. Some feel we go way too far-others become devotees of a philosophically liberal sheltering of opinion.

But arguing that even proven activation of PTSS should trump First Amendment protections? There's not a single case except perhaps Virginia v. Black that could fertilize that concept even a smidgen. And Virginia v. Black was written to carefully limit its holding to the specific issue of burning the cross WITH the mens rea to inflict harm on minorities.

[pizza]

I didn't question your view of the law as it is presently interpreted by the Supreme Court. If you review my argument, you'll see that I agreed with that unfortunate fact, so why harp upon it as if I hadn't? And so what? In which eternal stone is it carved? We're discussing ideas invented by fallible men. In this instance the law should be interpreted more narrowly and I think I've presented a compelling argument as to why it should be. The argument fully complies with Rule 11, FRCP in that it is clearly "warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;". Any rational court faced with the argument would have to consider it seriously.

Although Virginia v. Black doesn't address the issue precisely, it is certainly a major step in the right direction and no one seriously questioned the Nazis' mens rea for choosing Skokie as their marching venue. It was for the sole purpose of intimidation and causing increased suffering among a specific group of extremely vulnerable and highly susceptible people. What great leap of intellectual acuity is required in order to understand that whether you deliver a pathogen by a spray can or by way of marching bullies with speeches designed, intended and able to intensify the effects of a disease (and if you think PTSD isn't a disease, take it up with the VA and the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta) the result is precisely the same.

If one were to accept your reasoning, First Amendment constitutional law would remain forever static.

[Ralph]

I didn't question your view of the law as it is presently interpreted by the Supreme Court. If you review my argument, you'll see that I agreed with that unfortunate fact, so why harp upon it as if I hadn't? And so what? In which eternal stone is it carved? We're discussing ideas invented by fallible men. In this instance the law should be interpreted more narrowly and I think I've presented a compelling argument as to why it should be. The argument fully complies with Rule 11, FRCP in that it is clearly "warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;". Any rational court faced with the argument would have to consider it seriously.

Although Virginia v. Black doesn't address the issue precisely, it is certainly a major step in the right direction and no one seriously questioned the Nazis' mens rea for choosing Skokie as their marching venue. It was for the sole purpose of intimidation and causing increased suffering among a specific group of extremely vulnerable and highly susceptible people. What great leap of intellectual acuity is required in order to understand that whether you deliver a pathogen by a spray can or by way of marching bullies with speeches designed, intended and able to intensify the effects of a disease (and if you think PTSD isn't a disease, take it up with the VA and the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta) the result is precisely the same.

If one were to accept your reasoning, First Amendment constitutional law would remain forever static.

*****

Too bad you're so far away. I'd love to have you be a guest speaker at my First Amendment seminar.

But since you recognize what the law is, I have no problem with your view of what it ought to be.

Sure PTSS is a disease. And there are very many instances where persons could have that condition reactivated or aggravated by the presence of demonstrators. A few months ago we had a busload of hate-driven folks from a Kansas church make the rounds of abortion clinics and elsewhere spewing anti-abortion and anti-gay epithets. We've had anti-war protestors viewed by families that have lost loved ones in iraq and Afghanistan. And so on.

First Amendment law isn't static-but since at least the 60s it's moved to a more expansive and protective level with, usually, Scalia and Rehnquist on board.

[pizza]

I didn't question your view of the law as it is presently interpreted by the Supreme Court. If you review my argument, you'll see that I agreed with that unfortunate fact, so why harp upon it as if I hadn't? And so what? In which eternal stone is it carved? We're discussing ideas invented by fallible men. In this instance the law should be interpreted more narrowly and I think I've presented a compelling argument as to why it should be. The argument fully complies with Rule 11, FRCP in that it is clearly "warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;". Any rational court faced with the argument would have to consider it seriously.

Although Virginia v. Black doesn't address the issue precisely, it is certainly a major step in the right direction and no one seriously questioned the Nazis' mens rea for choosing Skokie as their marching venue. It was for the sole purpose of intimidation and causing increased suffering among a specific group of extremely vulnerable and highly susceptible people. What great leap of intellectual acuity is required in order to understand that whether you deliver a pathogen by a spray can or by way of marching bullies with speeches designed, intended and able to intensify the effects of a disease (and if you think PTSD isn't a disease, take it up with the VA and the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta) the result is precisely the same.

If one were to accept your reasoning, First Amendment constitutional law would remain forever static.

*****

Too bad you're so far away. I'd love to have you be a guest speaker at my First Amendment seminar.

But since you recognize what the law is, I have no problem with your view of what it ought to be.

Sure PTSS is a disease. And there are very many instances where persons could have that condition reactivated or aggravated by the presence of demonstrators. A few months ago we had a busload of hate-driven folks from a Kansas church make the rounds of abortion clinics and elsewhere spewing anti-abortion and anti-gay epithets. We've had anti-war protestors viewed by families that have lost loved ones in iraq and Afghanistan. And so on.

First Amendment law isn't static-but since at least the 60s it's moved to a more expansive and protective level with, usually, Scalia and Rehnquist on board.

The examples you give of "hate-driven folks" protesting the practices of abortion and homosexuality, and of others protesting the war are completely inapt. These are protests against ongoing practices and events. These events and practices can either be continued or terminated and thus they are all legitimate subjects of protest.

A Holocaust survivor isn't a practitioner of Holocaust surviving in that sense. The Holocaust is over and he's survived. Even if American Nazis could have and probably would have protested against their survival during the Holocaust if it were possible, there was nothing to protest after it was over. Therefore the planned Nazi "demonstrations" in Skokie were really intended to be assaults masked as protests. The appellate courts should have seen through the ruse.

[Ralph]

Pizza,

Why don't you find a possible plaintiff who can meet the Allen v. Wright standing requirements and set up a challenge to public demonstrations by people wearing Nazi regalia?

[Kevin R]

There are time, manner and place restrictions in many First Amendment matters. The message Collin and his group of neo-Nazis wanted to articulate would not have been altered (or censored) in the slightest way if they were told Skokie was off limits.

*****

Kevin,

I'm sorry but in this instance you simply do not know the law. Time, Manner and Place restrictions MUST be content neutral. If a place has historically been a "Public Forum," and virtually any street is, it can not be refused to any group. Time and Manner go to reasonable hours for use of the street (not 4AM in a residential area) and permissible equipment (the Supreme Court upheld a New York City regulation setting an upper limit on audio equipment but it had to apply to everyone).

On the other hand, there are many Supreme Court First Amendment decisions that specifically uphold the right to demonstrate at such locations as those so engaged believe will most

a) effectively
b) obnoxiously
c) disturbingly
d) All of the Above (correct answer)

convey their viewpoint.

Anyone here can believe the law should be different and so advocate but what I post is indisputably First Amendent doctrine. And I don't think Chief Justice Rehnquist or Justice Scalia have ever authored an opinion that disputes that doctrine. It's a clean sweep for the High Court.

Ralph,

I disagree. This case should have fallen under the "fighting words" doctrine. And as such, there would be a compelling government interest in preventing the march from occurring at the specific locale.

I defy anyone to show me how Mr. Collin's First Amendment rights would have been violated if he (and his group) had to march at location B instead of location A. The content of his speech wouldn't have changed one iota.

Blackmun's dissent (joined by White) is telling:

“These facts and this chronology demonstrate, I believe, the pervading sensitivity of the litigation. On the one hand, we have precious First Amendment rights vigorously asserted and an obvious concern that, if those asserted rights are not recognized, the precedent of a "hard" case might offer a justification for repression in the future. On the other hand, we are presented with evidence of a potentially explosive and dangerous situation, enflamed by unforgettable recollections of traumatic experiences in the second world conflict. Finally, Judge Sprecher of the Seventh Circuit observed that "each court dealing with these precise problems (the Illinois Supreme Court, the District Court and this Court) feels the need to apologize for its result." 578 F.2d at 1211. [439 U.S. 916 , 919] Furthermore, in Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (1952), this Court faced up to an Illinois statute that made it a crime to exhibit in any public place a publication that portrayed " depravity, criminality, unchastity, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens, of any race, color, creed or religion," thereby exposing such citizens "to contempt, derision, or obloquy." The Court, by a divided vote, held that, as construed and applied, the statute did not violate the liberty of speech guaranteed as against the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I stated in dissent when the application for stay in the present litigation was denied, 436 U.S., at 953 , that I feel the Seventh Circuit's decision is in some tension with Beauharnais. That case has not been overruled or formally limited in any way.

I therefore would grant certiorari in order to resolve any possible conflict that may exist between the ruling of the Seventh Circuit here and Beauharnais. I also feel that the present case affords the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in the context of the facts that this record appears to present, there is no limit whatsoever to the exercise of free speech. There indeed may be no such limit, but when citizens assert, not casually but with deep conviction, that the proposed demonstration is scheduled at a place and in a manner that is taunting and overwhelmingly offensive to the citizens of that place, that assertion, uncomfortable though it may be for judges, deserves to be examined. It just might fall into the same category as one's "right" to cry "fire" in a crowded theater, for "the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919).” Emphasis added.

And I'm unsure of how indisputable it really is. See the concurring opinion of Justice Stevens (who is still on the court) in the Consolidated Edison case:

“Any student of history who has been reprimanded for talking about the World Series during a class discussion of the [447 U.S. 530, 545] First Amendment knows that it is incorrect to state that a "time, place, or manner restriction may not be based upon either the content or subject matter of speech." Ante, at 536. And every lawyer who has read our Rules, 1 or our case upholding various restrictions on speech with specific reference to subject matter 2 must recognize the hyperbola in the dictum: "But, above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its messages, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 , quoted in part, ante, at 537. Indeed, if that were the law, there would be no need for the Court's detailed rejection of the justifications put forward by the State for the restriction involved in this case. See ante, Part III-C.

There are, in fact, many situations in which the subject matter, or, indeed, even the point of view of the speaker, may provide a justification for a time, place, and manner regulation.” Emphasis added.

[Ralph]

Kevin,

You continue to raise legal issues about which you know very little. First, dissents and concurrences may be fertile intellectual grounds for debate about changing law but they aren't law.

The so-called "Fighting Words" doctrine is virtually DOA. City of Houston v. Hill and RAV v. St. Paul are considered by virtually all law scholars to have narrowed "Fighting Words" down to almost nothing.

More importantly, the "Fighting Words" doctrine is not applied to demonstrations aimed at a public, large or small. The historical antecedents of the doctrine involve cases where a speaker is in someone's face (Chaplinsky, Cantwell, et al) and the confrontation is one-on-one. The purpose behind the moribund doctrine is to allow police intervention in situations where the likelihood of one-on-one violence is grave. An example of that is New York v. Feiner (Feiner is a personal friend who visits my Con Law class every semester) which is universally regarded as a wrong decision, one rooted in the nascent Cold War.

The "Fighting Words" doctrine has never been applied in modern times, since Feiner, to prevent any public expression of First Amendment rights through demonstrations or marches. It was tried in the South by the segregations, of course.

I realize you can't, or don't want to, go to law school. But given your interest and your obvious high intellect why not spring for a used or even new casebook on Constitutional Law? You can learn quite a lot by yourself.

[pizza]

Pizza,

Why don't you find a possible plaintiff who can meet the Allen v. Wright standing requirements and set up a challenge to public demonstrations by people wearing Nazi regalia?

Aside from the standing to sue problem, there has to be a justiciable controversy. When and where will the next Nazi "demonstration" occur? Should I keep my eye on the ACLU events calendar?

[Ralph]

Pizza,

Why don't you find a possible plaintiff who can meet the Allen v. Wright standing requirements and set up a challenge to public demonstrations by people wearing Nazi regalia?

Aside from the standing to sue problem, there has to be a justiciable controversy. When and where will the next Nazi "demonstration" occur? Should I keep my eye on the ACLU events calendar?

*****

Oh I love your sardonic wit. They must retail pretty powerful kosher moonshine at your Holy Land digs.

But of course I would help you by enlisting some local Nazis or KKK members to announce a march, perhaps through Eastern Parkway in Broklyn where the Lubavitchers almost hang from the trees. We can find a plaintiff in that neighborhood, I am certain.

[pizza]

Pizza,

Why don't you find a possible plaintiff who can meet the Allen v. Wright standing requirements and set up a challenge to public demonstrations by people wearing Nazi regalia?

Aside from the standing to sue problem, there has to be a justiciable controversy. When and where will the next Nazi "demonstration" occur? Should I keep my eye on the ACLU events calendar?

*****

Oh I love your sardonic wit. They must retail pretty powerful kosher moonshine at your Holy Land digs.

But of course I would help you by enlisting some local Nazis or KKK members to announce a march, perhaps through Eastern Parkway in Broklyn where the Lubavitchers almost hang from the trees. We can find a plaintiff in that neighborhood, I am certain.

I would actually look forward to that possibility. If they try marching through the Lubavitchers it will be the Nazis who suffer PTSD assuming they're lucky enough to get out alive. Excellent idea.

[Ralph]

I guarantee you that the NYPD will protect them as is their constitutional duty. They did a great job when the Klan came to town to demonstrate at City Hall about four years ago.

But if you want to try a legal challenge, I'll get you admitted pro hac vice for the event and I personally can insure media coverage. The name "Pizza the Lawyer" will become as irritatingly omnipresent as did that of the carpetbagger counsel, Yankel's brother from Oz.

[Kevin R]

Kevin,

You continue to raise legal issues about which you know very little. First, dissents and concurrences may be fertile intellectual grounds for debate about changing law but they aren't law.

The so-called "Fighting Words" doctrine is virtually DOA. City of Houston v. Hill and RAV v. St. Paul are considered by virtually all law scholars to have narrowed "Fighting Words" down to almost nothing.

More importantly, the "Fighting Words" doctrine is not applied to demonstrations aimed at a public, large or small. The historical antecedents of the doctrine involve cases where a speaker is in someone's face (Chaplinsky, Cantwell, et al) and the confrontation is one-on-one. The purpose behind the moribund doctrine is to allow police intervention in situations where the likelihood of one-on-one violence is grave. An example of that is New York v. Feiner (Feiner is a personal friend who visits my Con Law class every semester) which is universally regarded as a wrong decision, one rooted in the nascent Cold War.

The "Fighting Words" doctrine has never been applied in modern times, since Feiner, to prevent any public expression of First Amendment rights through demonstrations or marches. It was tried in the South by the segregations, of course.

I realize you can't, or don't want to, go to law school. But given your interest and your obvious high intellect why not spring for a used or even new casebook on Constitutional Law? You can learn quite a lot by yourself.

Ralph,

I realize (and give me some credit here) that dissents and concurring opinions are not law. My intent in quoting Stevens is that he showed (in a number of prior cases) that the content of a speaker had been subjected to time, manner and place restrictions (as I had indicated in my original post).

The idea that this situation came under the "fighting words" doctrine was advanced by many at the time, so I'm on firm historical ground for believing they were correct. And the Houston and Minnesota cases came after 1978, so I don't see how they are relevant to the Skokie case.

I have no need for any more law books. I've received far too many from associates over the years. Though I have thoroughly enjoyed reading Prof. Cheeseman's most recent introductory law textbook (4th edition I believe). He's a very clear writer on legal matters.

[Ralph]

Kevin,

You continue to raise legal issues about which you know very little. First, dissents and concurrences may be fertile intellectual grounds for debate about changing law but they aren't law.

The so-called "Fighting Words" doctrine is virtually DOA. City of Houston v. Hill and RAV v. St. Paul are considered by virtually all law scholars to have narrowed "Fighting Words" down to almost nothing.

More importantly, the "Fighting Words" doctrine is not applied to demonstrations aimed at a public, large or small. The historical antecedents of the doctrine involve cases where a speaker is in someone's face (Chaplinsky, Cantwell, et al) and the confrontation is one-on-one. The purpose behind the moribund doctrine is to allow police intervention in situations where the likelihood of one-on-one violence is grave. An example of that is New York v. Feiner (Feiner is a personal friend who visits my Con Law class every semester) which is universally regarded as a wrong decision, one rooted in the nascent Cold War.

The "Fighting Words" doctrine has never been applied in modern times, since Feiner, to prevent any public expression of First Amendment rights through demonstrations or marches. It was tried in the South by the segregations, of course.

I realize you can't, or don't want to, go to law school. But given your interest and your obvious high intellect why not spring for a used or even new casebook on Constitutional Law? You can learn quite a lot by yourself.

Ralph,

I realize (and give me some credit here) that dissents and concurring opinions are not law. My intent in quoting Stevens is that he showed (in a number of prior cases) that the content of a speaker had been subjected to time, manner and place restrictions (as I had indicated in my original post).

The idea that this situation came under the "fighting words" doctrine was advanced by many at the time, so I'm on firm historical ground for believing they were correct. And the Houston and Minnesota cases came after 1978, so I don't see how they are relevant to the Skokie case.

I have no need for any more law books. I've received far too many from associates over the years. Though I have thoroughly enjoyed reading Prof. Cheeseman's most recent introductory law textbook (4th edition I believe). He's a very clear writer on legal matters.

*****
The simple relevance is that the "Fighting Words" doctrine is near death if not interred. The Houston and Minnesota cases coming AFTER Skokie further undermine what even then was a losing position.

As to Stevens, his opinions as concurrences and dissents are often way off the radar screen of accepted doctrine. WHile he may see himself as the Court's true intellectual, a successor to...maybe Frankfurter who had the same self-image, too many of his views don't stand cogent analysis. And I really like him.

And there is ZERO doctrine that "Time, Place and Manner" can EVER be applied to CONTENT-BASED restrictions on the use of PUBLIC FORUMS. I think your earlier post referred to forbidding certain demonstrations in non-public forum locales. That's not Time, Place and Manner even if a justice misapplies the term. Every piece of public property isn't a traditional public forum, e.g., military bases, state university campuses, sidewalks in front of prisons (Auburn and Clinton in New York: it's been litigated) and so forth.