National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie

In a post-World-War-II-world, no symbol evokes a strong emotional response quite like the swastika. For most people, the ancient Indian religious symbol that once stood for good luck and success now represents Hitler, hatred, and the Holocaust: a shameful time in history. Imagine the conflict that would arise should a neo-Nazi organization seek to parade the symbol and all that it now represents through in the heart of a community affected by its abhorrent message the most, Skokie.

In the United States, no document is given more deference and regarded as highly as the constitution. The First Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This inalienable First Amendment right is necessary on based on the grounds of several theories. One theory for support of First Amendment rights is the idea that the truth comes to the surface only through a free marketplace of ideas; by allowing free expression, especially expression that strays from the norms, society can filter out bad ideas without the need for or fear of government intervention/oppression. (Volokh, 28). The theory that people must be able to freely express what government should be in order to have an effective self-government also plays a role in the defense of free speech in this context. (Volokh, 219). These two rationales for strict preservation of First Amendment rights as a necessity in a democratic society were especially significant in the civil rights struggles during years leading up to the Skokie case and served as a backdrop for the importance of allowing free speech, no matter how repugnant it may be viewed by the masses. First Amendment rights were wrought with conflict throughout the civil rights movement, most notably exercised by Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech, challenging the white majority’s oppression of African Americans that had resulted rioting and violence through the years. (Brodenhamer, 90-91). By 1967, the supreme court strengthened the reach of First Amendment protection and overturned laws prohibiting communist speech and assembly United States, despite general community disdain for communist views, most notably illustrated by the McCarthy investigations of the late 1940’s and 1950’s. (Brodenhamer, 75).

It is therefore unsurprising that in the wake of the civil rights era, in a highly segregated metropolitan area with a large Jewish population, such as Skokie, conflict arose when Frank Collin and his National Socialist Party of America (NSPA) attempted to stage a demonstration espousing hateful and offensive views of Jews and African Americans under protection of the First Amendment.

Frank Collin was a founding member of the NSPA. Chicago newspaper columnist Mike Royko described Frank Collin as, “a dippy Nazi” and a “warped twerp.” (Strum, 13). Some of the more repugnant views of Collin’s NSPA included:

• 
  Final solution of the Jewish Question through documents exposure of the destructive effect of Jewry on American society and Western Civilization.
  
• 
  Awarding of citizenship only to those 18 year old Americans of Aryan descent.
  
• 
  A National Eugenics Commission for… the elimination of all racial impurities.
  
• 
  Prosecution of all individuals guilty of race-mixing activities.
  
• 
  Liquidation of all Zionist, pro-Zionist, and other treasonous organizations.
  

Collin and the NSPA attempted to intimidate those who they opposed and were not afraid of using litigation as a tool to exercise what they believed to be their right to free speech.

If nothing else, Frank Collin is a persistent man. Professor Howard Eglit, former legal director of the Illinois ACLU, described him as being as being the worst client he ever had. Professor Eglit represented Collin many times before the Skokie suit, but left the ACLU several months before the events that led to Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America.

The ACLU was present from the beginning of Collin’s battle to hold a rally in Skokie. They stayed a part of it too, despite hostile public opinion towards them and a shrinking membership. In 1977, the Illinois chapter of the ACLU estimated that it had lost thirty percent of its membership and it was forced to lay off five of its thirteen employees. (Strum, 82). Despite this pressure, on May 4th, 1977, the Illinois ACLU board of directors voted unanimously to continue representing Collin and to go ahead with the case. (Strum, 63).

The directors of the ACLU knew that representing the NSPA would be unpopular and would cost them financially through the loss of members. However, the directors also knew that as repulsive as Collin and the NSPA were the real issue was the ability of the government to curb speech that it did not like. In a fundraising letter sent to thousands of lawyers, David Goldberger said, “[t]he Nazis are not the real issue. The Skokie laws are the real issue. . . Skokie has already used the very same law to deny the Jewish War Veterans a permit to parade. . . Think of such a power in the hands of a racist sheriff or a local police department hostile to anti-war demonstrators.” (Strum, 145). The ACLU would stay true to its first annual report. In 1920, the ACLU published “The Fight for Free Speech” which read, in part, “There should be no control whatever in advance over what any person may say, the right to meet and speak freely without permit should be unquestioned.” (Neyer, 69).

Marquette Park

Prior to the Skokie suit, Collin kept the ACLU busy for years with suits against the Chicago Police Department. In the 1970’s, the Martin Luther King Jr. Coalition, a civil rights group, regularly held demonstrations in Marquette Park. (Strum, 5). The NSPA protested these rallies and fights often broke out. Collin started calling on the ACLU to suit the Chicago Police Department, and the City of Chicago for violating his civil liberties.

In the 1960s in Chicago and across the country, African Americans fought for their constitutional rights through sit-ins, marches, boycotts, and other demonstrations. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., as a pillar of the civil rights movement, came to Chicago for a period of time in 1966 as co-chair of the Chicago Freedom Movement, a year-long campaign for open housing. King led marches through a segregated neighborhood on the southwest side of the city called Marquette Park. The Chicago Freedom Movement’s goal was to bring attention to the city’s housing segregation problems, and to try to open up the Marquette Park neighborhood to African Americans who were interested calling it “home.” King and his fellow marchers were met with incredible hostility and violence from pro-segregation activists and the community at large.

Martin Luther King Jr.’s efforts to integrate the Marquette Park neighborhood were largely unsuccessful. By 1976, ten years later, the sharply defined racial border lines that had existed for generations were still in existence. The population of Marquette Park was largely dominated by white immigrants who were strongly opposed to allowing African Americans to reside in to their neighborhood. “Marquette Park suffer[ed] from many of the problems which have been associated with ‘white militancy’: life on the fringe of the slums, a sense of insecurity, threatened property values, and an educational background not conducive to drawing fine civil libertarian distinctions.” (Downs, 20).

Neo-Nazi Frank Collin chose to headquarter his National Socialist Party of America in this neighborhood “on the fringe.” Frank Collin had been demonstrating in Marquette Park for years. The National Socialist Party of America normally had from ten to twenty-five members at their demonstrations, numbers which were slightly below their estimated membership. (Downs, 19). In 1975, the Martin Luther King Jr. Coalition was formed to openly resist racism in Marquette Park and to confront the National Socialist Party of America and their Nazi demonstrations. As a result, violence escalated. In the summer of 1976, violence ensued in Marquette Park when “Collin’s calls to ‘drive back the nigger’ fell on the ears of young white boys, bored with summer and receptive to Collin’s call because of their parents’ fears,” (Hamlin, 10).

Soon thereafter, the City of Chicago made an effort to stop the racial fighting and chaos in Marquette Park by making it necessary to post a $250,000 insurance bond in order to get a permit to demonstrate. Of course, for most groups (including the civil rights groups and the National Socialist Party of America), $250,000 was a staggering sum of money that would prove impossible to procure. The City of Chicago’s bond requirement essentially made it impossible for any small, underfunded organization to demonstrate in the park. With years of experience in staging demonstrations, and relying on his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, Frank Collin called on the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU agreed to represent Collin in the First Amendment infringement lawsuit, Collin v. O’Malley.

Collin’s representation at the ACLU was David Goldberger, a Jewish lawyer who had graduated from the University of Chicago and served as chief counsel for Collin’s filings through the ACLU. Representing Collin, Goldberger found himself at odds with Jews and community activists nationwide, including his family. Though admittedly a little naïve when he entered into this fight that would brand him as a traitor, Goldberger’s strong support and pride in defending the First Amendment led him to defend even those he firmly disagreed with. (Simon, 1977-08/14). David Hamlin was the director of the Illinois division of the ACLU at the time, and was good friends with Goldberger as well as his supervisor. Hamlin had worked for the ACLU in New Hampshire before coming to Chicago, and, though not a lawyer, he had much experience aiding in defense of First Amendment rights. Hamlin supported Goldberger’s continued representation of Collin in this First Amendment battle that would ultimately influence Hamlin to resign from the ACLU, exhausted in its aftermath. (Olmstead, 1978-08/08).

Faced with an effective ban on his demonstrating in Marquette Park, and awaiting the courts to address the First Amendment violation suit filed with ACLU support, Collin turned his focus back to planning a demonstration.

Although Collin filed the lawsuit against the City of Chicago, he still had the immediate problem of having nowhere to demonstrate. For this reason, he sent out letters to the park districts of several of the suburbs surrounding Chicago, including the Village of Skokie, a predominantly Jewish community with numerous Holocaust survivors. Skokie is mostly white collar and middle to upper-middle class. Skokie’s Jewish population made up almost half of the 70,000 people who lived there in the 1970s. Of those 30,000, somewhere from 800 to 1200 were survivors Hitler’s persecution of Jew in Europe (counting family members, the number is estimated to be 5,000). (Downs, 21). The Village of Skokie’s park district responded to Collin, following the City of Chicago’s lead by stating that in order for him to stage a demonstration, he would need to post a an insurance bond.

Frank Collin wrote to the village council, stating that he planned to assemble outside the Skokie Village Hall to protest the high insurance bond. He assured them that there would be no speeches made, but that the National Socialist Party of America would peacefully and quietly protest in Nazi uniform, displaying the swastika.

Despite promising a peaceful and quiet protest, Collin stated very plainly why he chose Skokie as the site of his rally. In an interview with Bob Greene of the Chicago Sun-Times, Collin displayed a pamphlet that read, “Where one finds the most Jews, there one will find the most Jew haters.” (Strum, 15). Regarding any Holocaust survivors that might be present in Skokie, Collin stated:

“I hope they’re terrified. I hope they’re shocked. Because we’re coming to get them again. I don’t care if someone’s mother or father or brother died in the gas chambers. The unfortunate thing is not that there were six million Jews who died. The unfortunate thing is that there were so many Jewish survivors.”

(Strum, 15)

Collin intended to offend as many people as possible and he became adept at using the media to gain publicity for the NSPA.

Initially, the village council intended to honor his right to demonstrate. Their goal was to allow Collin to protest in the village with little or no reaction so that he would become discouraged and not want to protest there again. However, the Skokie synagogues did not approve of the council’s plan. Jewish residents of Skokie wanted to prevent Collin from demonstrating in their village no matter what. Because the village council had little support for its plan, the plan was abandoned and the council filed suit against Collin in the Circuit Court of Cook County, requesting an order barring Collin and the National Socialist Party of America from demonstrating in uniform. The major question was whether the NSPA’s wearing of the swastika in a demonstration could be enjoined because it constituted a verbal assault or fighting words. Fighting words are words or phrases that are likely to induce the listener to get in a fight. With people getting less sensitive to words, this exception is little-used. The village’s rationale for the suit was that because the audience of the demonstration might break the law during the demonstration (through violence or other means), the demonstration should be prevented altogether in order to prevent any law from being broken, regardless of the fact that what Collin was planning to do was legal.

Skokie corporate counsel Harvey Schwartz and Skokie Mayor Albert J. Smith had a clear understanding of the status of laws on the right to assemble. “The law was clear: the First Amendment protected Collin’s group, despicable as it was.” (Strum, 17). In the past Skokie had dealt with racial demonstrations in the past and, if not for the vocal opposition of what was at first just a few individuals, the village might not have opposed the NSPA rally.

Sol Goldstein was a Holocaust survivor and a Skokie resident since 1948. (Strum, 9). He lost several members of his family when his hometown of Kovno, Lithuania was taken over by the Nazis in 1941. Mr. Goldstein had particularly strong memories associated with the uniforms worn by the Sturmabteilung, which was the model for Frank Collin’s NSPA uniforms. (Strum, 10). He was a prominent member of the community and his opposition served to encourage others to stand against the proposed NSPA rally. Goldstein and other Holocaust survivors reacted in such a visceral way that Harvey Schwartz and Mayor Smith changed their stance on the proposed rally. When Harvey Schwartz saw the Holocaust survivors, “standing there. . . almost in a catatonic state-petrified-shaking-crying” he began to see the First Amendment in a different light. (Strum, 59). Mayor Smith started to see the situation in similarly “Nowhere else would this proscribed Nazi March evoke in so many people such vivid memories of the manner in which their loved ones met their death.” (Strum, 60).

This groundswell of public opposition to the first NSPA rally caused Skokie to change its position on granting the NSPA a rally permit. On April 27, 1977 the Village of Skokie filed suit in Cook County District court seeking an injunction preventing the NSPA from holding a rally on May 1st, 1977. Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America had begun.

The ACLU was present from the beginning of Collin’s battle to hold a rally in Skokie. They stayed a part of it too, despite hostile public opinion towards them and a shrinking membership. In 1977, the Illinois chapter of the ACLU estimated that it had lost thirty percent of its membership and it was forced to lay off five of its thirteen employees. (Strum, 82). Despite this pressure, on May 4th, 1977, the Illinois ACLU board of directors voted unanimously to continue representing Collin and to go ahead with the case. (Strum, 63).

Concerned and furious citizens from all over the US called the ACLU, demanding to know why they were representing Nazis. This was especially difficult for Illinois ACLU director David Hamlin, who was not Jewish, and therefore criticized as unsympathetic to the Jewish community, and for ACLU lawyer David Goldberger, who was Jewish, and considered my many a traitor to his faith and community.

In addition to countless personal attacks on David Goldberger because he was Jewish and representing a Nazi, the ACLU felt blows through loss of support from its members who were sympathetic to the Jewish community and against protection of the rights of Nazis. Over a period of 4 months in 1977, the ACLU had lost over 600 members nation-wide. This also meant that the organization lost a significant amount of financial support.

Since at the heart of the issue was a community concerned for its wellbeing, both David Hamlin and David Goldberger addressed the community via many public speaking engagements throughout the progressing litigation. For the attorneys, the speaking engagements were grueling and repetitive, addressing the same issues and presenting the same arguments each time. And throughout these speaking engagements the, when Hamlin spoke with the Jewish congregations, the rabbis and community activists consistently argued in opposition to the ACLU’s stance on protecting Collin’s First Amendment rights as essential to the preservation of democracy and protection of endangered minorities and their ability to cry out for change when faced with injustice from the seeming majority.

As with any litigation, Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America was not happening in a vacuum. The shocking nature of where the NSPA wanted to protest provoked a torrent of criticism. Many of these criticisms came from Jewish groups. The American Jewish Congress issued an official statement that supported the Village of Skokie’s ordinance that would allow the NSPA to March, but not in uniform. (Strum, 88). This came in spite of the ACLU’s repeated appeals for support from the AJC. The Anti-Defamation League advocated an official policy of quarantine - that Jewish members should simply ignore the NSPA because it was the attention that they were seeking. (Strum, 17).

Other voices called for more aggressive resistance. Rabbi Meir Kahane spoke at length about the need for Jews to oppose the NSPA. (Neier, 125). One of his followers, then a seventeen year old from New Jersey saw it this way:

“The slogan Never Again has often been misinterpreted as meaning never again will there be a Holocaust. That’s a mistake. The slogan meant never again would we stand idle while Jewish lives were threatened.”

Another group, the Jewish Defense League sent Aryeh Neier, National Director of the ACLU, a plaque commemorating Hitler’s birthday, complete with pictures of the ovens used in the Holocaust.

There were additional voices from more secular quarters. Economist Abba Lerner described his opposition to the ACLU’s involvement in the case in a purposive argument. “The overriding purpose of the ACLU is to promote and defend a democratic social order in which freedom of speech is secure. If this purpose comes into conflict with freedom of speech directed at destroying such a social order, their obligation is surely to protect the social order of free speech rather than the free speech of its destroyers.” (Neier, 132-3). Politicians across the country urged Skokie not to give in and others urged the ACLU to abandon the case in the name of decency. (Strum, 112).

The directors of the ACLU knew that representing the NSPA would be unpopular and would cost them financially through the loss of members. However, the directors also knew that as repulsive as Collin and the NSPA were the real issue was the ability of the government to curb speech that it did not like. In a fundraising letter sent to thousands of lawyers, David Goldberger said, “[t]he Nazis are not the real issue. The Skokie laws are the real issue. . . Skokie has already used the very same law to deny the Jewish War Veterans a permit to parade. . . Think of such a power in the hands of a racist sheriff or a local police department hostile to anti-war demonstrators.” (Strum, 145). The ACLU would stay true to its first annual report. In 1920, the ACLU published “The Fight for Free Speech” which read, in part, “There should be no control whatever in advance over what any person may say, the right to meet and speak freely without permit should be unquestioned.” (Neyer, 69).

The day after Skokie filed its lawsuit, Judge Wosik granted an injunction that prevented the NSPA from holding their rally on that day. Collin had become familiar with court documents after having been party to many of them during his tenure as President of the NSPA. The day after Judge Wosik issued the injunction, Collin issued a press release stating that the NSPA would move the date of its rally up by one day and circumvent the injunction. (Strum, 58). In what was likely an unconstitutional emergency hearing because it denied the NSPA due process, the Village of Skokie summoned Judge Harold Sullivan, a Skokie resident, to the village hall. (Strum, 58). Without counsel for the NSPA present, Judge Sullivan modified Judge Wosik’s injunction to and increased its scope from May 1st, 1977 to without limitation as to date and time. (Strum, 59). Frank Collin and the NSPA were stopped by police as they exited the expressway and told that if they continued, they would be violating the injunction. (Strum, 59).

Two days later, the Village of Skokie adopted three new ordinances that were substantially more restrictive on the public’s right to demonstrate. The first ordinance stated that no permit to demonstrate would be issued unless the group seeking to demonstrate posted a $350,000 insurance bond. The second ordinance made it illegal for any individual to display any information that incites hatred against any group or to wear any clothing that would have the same effect. The third ordinance prevented any groups from demonstrating in a military-style uniform. (Strum, 62). These ordinances caused the ACLU to file the companion case Collin v. Smith.

From this point on, there were two cases involving the NSPA and the Village of Skokie. The judicial activities in each case are best illustrated with these timelines:
Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America

5/25/77 - Illinois Supreme Court refuses to stay the enforcement of the injunction

5/4/77 - ACLU files suit alleging that newly adopted ordinances are unconstitutional

Shortly after the Illinois Supreme court’s decisions to strike down the in junction and permit the NSPA to march in Skokie while displaying the swastika, and the Court of Appeal’s decision finding ordinances that restrict demonstrations unconstitutional, it was time for Collin to march. In the end, Collin chose not to march in Skokie. Instead, Collin held his demonstration n the summer of 1978 in Marquette Park, as he originally planned. Despite Collin’s victories in court concerning his First Amendment right to demonstrate in Skokie, Collin made the decision to leave the community be; either due to the likely violence from the number of counter-demonstrators who vowed to riot, or simply because such demonstration was no longer necessary considering the impact this controversy made across the nation via the media. (Szczepaniak, 1987-09/17)

“Whether it comes wrapped in a swastika or an American flag, political censorship merits only rejection,” (Hamline, 175). The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the First Amendment of the US Constitution and ensure that the right to freedom of speech is held even by those with controversial beliefs has been felt far and wide. However, although “freedom of speech” is now firmly engrained as a universal right in American society, the controversial decision in Village of Skokie has not made subsequent freedom of speech cases less controversial. There are many who believe that “speech that lies at the periphery must be protected if we are to strengthen impulses or principles, such as toleration, that are important to society”—(Delgado, 153). However, there are always divisive issues, such as racism, abortion, pornography, and homosexuality, that enflame the passions of those who believe in a qualified form of free speech protection under the First Amendment.

For example, the Communications Decency Act was passed in 1996. This law was intended to outlaw so-called "indecent" online communication. However, in 1997, the Supreme Court further extended the full protection of the First Amendment to the Internet in Reno v. ACLU, a decision which struck down portions of the Act. The court's decision identified the Internet as a "free speech zone," and extended the same Constitutional protections given to books, magazines, films, and spoken expression to materials published on the Internet. As a result, the First Amendment right to freedom of expression is stronger than ever.

Although Frank Collin may not have initially intended it, his suit to recover his right to freedom of speech has strengthened the First Amendment and helped to ensure that the freedom of speech be upheld for all American citizens, from all ends of the political and social spectrum. The National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, although instilling fear and anger in countless citizens across the country, has come to represent just how deep the right to freedom of expression in this country runs.

Aryeh Neier. Defending my enemy: American Nazis, the Skokie Case and the Risks of Freedom. E.P. Dutton 1979.

Collin v. O’Malley, 556 F.2d 584 (7th Cir. 1977).

Delgado, Richard and Stefancic, Jean. Must We Defend Nazis? New York University Press 1997.

Downs, Donald. Nazis in Skokie: Freedom, Community and the First Amendment. University of Notre Dame Press, 1985.

Gibson, James L., Civil liberties and Nazis: the Skokie free-speech controversy. Praeger Publishers, 1985.

Hamlin, David. The Nazi/Skokie Conflict: A Civil Liberties Battle. Beacon Press, 1980.

Meth, Clifford. "The Nazis in Skokie: 30 Years Later." Everyone's Wrong and I'm Right. 25 June 2008. 23 Sept. 2008 .

Olmstead, Bob. Hamlin Quitting as ACLU Leader After Nazi Case. Sun-Times Co., 1978.

Simon, Roger. His Stand for Right Not Sitting Well. Sun-Times Co., 1977.

Strum, Philippa. When the Nazis Came to Skokie : Freedom for Speech We Hate. New York: University P of Kansas, 1999.

Szczepaniak, Jim. Collin vs. Skokie : A classic case of protection of 'repulsive' beliefs. Pioneer Press, 1987.