Protecting Nazi rhetoric in the United States is not about the first amendment.

There’s a lot of people, perhaps asleep and believing strongly they’re taking a principled stance, that believe deeply that somehow allowing Nazi rhetoric in the United States is an issue of protecting the First Amendment. This is a lie, and our country needs to face the truth. That includes the ACLU.

Isaiah Bradley, the First Captain America, battling Nazis in “Truth: Red, White & Black

“… if a State seeks to impose a restraint on First Amendment rights, it must provide strict procedural safeguards, including immediate appellate review… Absent such review, the State must instead allow a stay.”

The Supreme Court didn’t say, “a State cannot impose a restraint.” The Supreme Court said, IF a State wants to impose a restraint, you have to follow due process. Since Illinois didn’t follow process, Illinois had to hold a hearing to determine whether the Nazi rhetoric constituted “fighting words,” citing Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942).

“It is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include 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. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. “Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.”

In simpler words, the Supreme Court found in 1942 that ‘Fighting Words’ would allow a community to restrict the free speech rights of a citizen. Because Chaplinsky had threatened people, it was reasonable for those same people (in this case the local government) to ‘restrict’ his free speech rights. Because he used fighting words.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store