Skokie Case

Today's society is faced with a misunderstanding of what, in the proper and moral sense, constitutes free expression. Speeches or demonstrations contrary to the legal and moral directions that the simple use of freedom of expression imposes in order to protect the population from abusive attacks on social values often stand out. One of the famous cases in this regard took place in the village of Skokie, Illinois, USA. In the spring of 1977, a group of Nazi supporters grouped under the name of the National Socialist Party of America (hereafter NSPA) requested the acceptance of organizing a march in front of the town hall of Skokie, a village consisting of more than 40,000 Jews out of a total of approximately 70,000 inhabitants, many of whom are Holocaust survivors. The residents of Skokie immediately took a stand against the NSPA's demands, issuing a local ordinance requiring the Nazi supporter group to obtain a series of permits and prohibiting them from holding an incitement demonstration. to racial and religious hatred, and on the other, wearing military-style uniforms (with references to the Nazi uniform). They also sought a court ban on holding such a demonstration in Skokie. NSPA presented its position in court, citing their right to free speech under the First Amendment to the US Constitution which states that it "protects the freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that the demonstration requested by the NSPA is and will remain protected by the principles of free speech under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

At a first analysis of the facts of the Skokie case, it can be said that the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of Illinois is oriented towards the promotion of anti-Semitic groups, likely to destabilize society. The residents of the community of Skokie were of the same opinion, considering the manifestation of the Nazi group as a symbolic attack. However, looking at the bottom of the matter, it can be seen that the NSPA had no intention of inciting hatred or violence against the Jews of the Skokie community, but sought to oppose them precisely in order to end up in court and gain some image at the regional level. According to Lee Bollinger, president of Colombia University, NSPA's intent was "to protest the denial of their right to 'freedom of speech.' They proposed carrying signs emblazoned with such ugly slogans as "White Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Speech for White Americans" to protest the requirement of an insurance policy as a prerequisite for obtaining a marching permit ( ...). The Nazis never marched in Skokie, even after securing the right to do so; rather, they chose to appear in Chicago, where prior to the Skokie case they were also denied leave to testify.

The settlement of the case in favor of the NSPA group is viewed, even today, with a dose of skepticism. Aryeh Neier, then-director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) noted in one of his books that "the difficulty with the view that Nazi speech is unworthy of constitutional protection is that it requires us to trust the government to determine who will be denied the right to speak because their intent is to take away freedom of speech. Unfortunately, governments have a very poor record of making such decisions."

The Skokie case is the clear example that the meanings of freedom of expression can be understood differently by each society, considering both the level of culture and education, as well as the degree of adaptation of mentalities to the continuous evolution of social components. However, from a scientific point of view, things can change, it is no longer about the conception of the notion of freedom, but about its interpretation (sometimes erroneously, against the truth).