Village Of Skokie Vs. The Aclu Essays - Skokie Controversy

Village Of Skokie Vs. The Aclu Skokie In the case of Village of Skokie vs. The ACLU(American Civil Liberties Union) I would definitely stand with the ACLU. The ACLU was defending the First Amendment Right. They were not defending the Nazis. We might not agree with what the Nazis are saying but, they still have a right to say it. Herb Lewison of the ACLU and the attorney for Collin stated to the judge ?Your Honor, this is a simple First Amendment case. The Village of Skokie seeks and order, preventing the exercise of free speech before the speech has even occurred, in spite of the fact that it has been proposed as an orderly exercise, taking place for only 20 minutes on public property in front of the Skokie Municipal Building.? This section of the quote from Herb Lewison is simply saying that Skokie is just trying take away the first amendment right of the Nazis. Everything that they are asking for falls within their first amendment right. All they are just proposing is an orderly march. An orderly march for 20 minutes on public property. This is okay in my opinion because everything is offensive to someone. But you still have the right to voice your opinion. The second quote Lewison states is, ?This is a classic case in which government officials are asking a court of equity to impose a prior restraint on the speech of persons advocating unpopular ideas.? Lewison is saying in this part of his summary argument that the government is asking the court to issue a prior restraint on the speech because they don't agree with their ideas. Another part of his quote states ?The Village of Skokie has shown only that the political views of Collin and his party are offensive and outrageous, which of course they are. They have failed to show any reason that the defendant planned to engage in any sort of illegal activity whatsoever.? Lewison shows a very good understanding of the case he is involved in. He knows that Collin's views are stupid and have no place in society. But Collin has made no threats to do anything illegal in his rally or march. All of the threats of violence have been made against him understandably. I strongly support Herb Lewison on this case. One of the best quotes in this whole legal battle came from the Judge who said, ?I believe he (Collin) intends to make trouble, to incite to riots and cause bodily harm. The Constitution certainly doesn't give a person like Collin the right to come into a peaceful community and cause violence?. The Judge is looking at this from a point of view that most people would it is a very good analysis of what Collin intends to do. I understand the Judge on his standpoint but, like Lewison said he has not made any threat of illegal activity. I still say Collin has the right to speak under the First Amendment. I support the ACLU. No matter how brainless your statements might be you have the right to say it. If I wanted to say something and someone doesn't agree should I not be allowed to say it, truth or no truth to what I'm saying.