Should you defend the free speech rights of neo-Nazis? | Nadine Strossen | Big Think

TL;DR

The ACLU defends the fundamental right to freedom of speech, including for hate groups, which has caused controversy among its supporters.

Transcript

The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU, has always staunchly defended all fundamental freedoms for all people no matter who you are, no matter what you believe, we consider that you are entitled to fundamental and equal rights, including freedom of speech. And thats true even for people who reject and crusade against our own civil liberties p... Read More

Key Insights

• 😯 The ACLU staunchly defends all fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, regardless of individuals' beliefs or the controversial nature of the speech.
• 🗯️ The defense of hate mongers by the ACLU has created controversy among its own supporters who question the organization's commitment to equal rights and anti-discrimination.
• 😯 The organization's support for free speech, even for hate groups, is grounded in the bedrock principle that the government cannot suppress speech solely based on its dislike by the majority.
• 🥺 The ACLU's defense of the Nazis in the Skokie case led to the loss of many members and subjected its leaders to threats and harassment.
• 💼 The ACLU's brief in the Skokie case highlighted that similar principles had been used to defend free speech for Martin Luther King's organization in a different town in Illinois.

Questions & Answers

Q: Why has the ACLU received controversy for supporting freedom of speech for hate groups?

The ACLU believes in defending equal rights and fundamental freedoms for all, including freedom of speech, even for those who hold hateful views. This stance has caused controversy among some supporters who question how the organization can support hate mongers.

Q: What was the Skokie case, and why was it significant?

The Skokie case refers to a situation in 1977 where the ACLU defended the free speech rights of neo-Nazis who planned to demonstrate in Skokie, Illinois, a town with a significant Jewish population. This case became significant because it led to the loss of 15% of the ACLU's members and subjected its leaders to threats and harassment.

Q: How did the ACLU justify defending free speech for the Nazis in the Skokie case?

The ACLU justified their defense by referencing the bedrock principle underlying free speech jurisprudence, which states that the government cannot suppress speech solely because it is disliked, even if it propagates hateful or unpopular ideas. They argued that their defense was for the principle, not the Nazis themselves.

Q: Why does the ACLU believe defending freedom of speech is essential?

The ACLU believes that freedom of speech is an inviolable and indivisible principle that must be protected to remain strong. They argue that if government suppression of speech is allowed in one community, even for unpopular ideas, it sets a dangerous precedent that can lead to the censorship of cherished ideas in other communities.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• The ACLU has always supported fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, even for those who oppose their principles.

• In a famous case in 1977, the ACLU defended the free speech rights of neo-Nazis who wanted to demonstrate in Skokie, Illinois, causing backlash from some ACLU members.

• The ACLU won the case, highlighting the bedrock principle that the government cannot suppress speech solely because it is disliked.