Defending My Enemy: 2 MOBI å Defending My PDF/EPUB

Defending My Enemy: 2 MOBI å Defending My PDF/EPUB


Defending My Enemy: 2 ➟ Defending My Enemy: 2 free download ➤ Author Aryeh Neier – Centrumpowypadkowe.co.uk Best Kindle, Defending My Enemy: 2 by Aryeh Neier This is very good and the main topic to read with book details format Hardcover and others 182 pages and has a text language like English isbn 9780525 Best Kindle, Defending My Enemy: by Aryeh Neier This is very good and the main topic to Defending My PDF/EPUB ² read with book details format Hardcover and others pages and has a text language like English isbn .

  • Hardcover
  • 182 pages
  • Defending My Enemy: 2
  • Aryeh Neier
  • English
  • 21 February 2016
  • 9780525089728

4 thoughts on “Defending My Enemy: 2

  1. Christopher Blosser Christopher Blosser says:

    The controversial assembly and march of white nationalists members of the KKK and national socialists in Charlottesville VA reinvigorated within social media and the press the debate over the First Amendment unfortunately the uestion of “should we permit ‘Nazis’ to have free speech” uickly escalated among many armchair vigilantes into the notion that not only the answer was firmly in the negative but “punching Nazis” was a perfectly legitimate and only rational response and to suggest otherwise made one a bad AmericanOthers entertained the idea of foregoing Constitutional rights altogether and adopting a manner of legal censorship currently employed by Germany whose Strafgesetzbuch Criminal Code prohibits outright the public display of “symbols of unconstitutional organizations” outside the context of art or science research or teaching”Apropos of this discussion and harkening back to a similar debate I checked out Aryyeh Neier’s Defending My Enemy American Nazis the Skokie Case and the Risks of Freedom from our libraryMr Neier was National Executive Director of the ACLU from 1970 78 an organization committed to arguing often controversial cases in defense of the First Amendment The book chronicles one such case in 1977 National Socialist Party of America v Village of Skokie in which the ACLU took up the right of Frank Collin leader of the National Socialist Party of America to hold a rally in Skokie Illinois a deliberately provocative move in light of the large population of Holocaust survivors within that particular city Also interesting is the fact that Mr Neier himself is a survivor of the Holocaust born in Berlin in 1937 and having escaped to England with his parents at the age of twoNeier spends the initial part of the book providing a history of anti semitism and activity of national socialist movements in the United States the German American Bund of the 1930’s and George Lincoln Rockwell’s post WWII founding of the American Nazi Party in the 50’s The National Rennaisance Party in the 60’s The National Socialist White People’s Party and the National Socialist Party of America in the 70’s et al et al The term “Party” is deceptive here as Neier makes clear they were in those times relatively small in membership and for which reason they much like today craved the publicity of the media to cultivate a much larger impression of themselves among the general public We learn that it was once the position of the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council that “public protests against Rockwell’s appearances and noisy and violent mass demonstrations merely provide him with increased publicity and bolster the image of martyred hero which as such an appeal to the elements he seeks to attract to his banner” which I suppose is the modern day euivalent of the online admonishment “ don’t feed the troll” Chapters 3 and 4 are devoted to presenting the background and specifics of the Skokie case itselfHe reviews the criticisms of those who opposed the Nazi march in Skokie both external critics as well as internal dissenters within the ACLU and the reasoning that ultimately led the organization to affirm the Nazi’s right to a march and to challenge the various measures ultimately found unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court which the city of Skokie sought to stop them ex ordinances demanding exorbitantly high insurance for the holding of public rallies; an injunction forbidding the distribution of literature that incited hatred the display of the swastika the wearing of uniforms Some of the explanations for why Nazis should be forbidden to speak may ring familiar to those on social media or college campuses today the Anti Defamation League for example sought an injunction against the march on grounds that it would be tantamount to the infliction of “menticide” or emotional harm Curiously this was not the first legal case of its kind for the ACLU nor the first time that it had defended Nazis’ right to speech According to Neier the ACLU handled free speech cases in the 1960’s than at any time previously in the organization’s history It was pretty much understood that anybody who had a legitimate case to exercise their constitutional right Nazis the KKK Communists unionists civil rights and anti war demonstrators et al would receive their assistance “The streets were so crowded with demonstrations of all sorts In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s that the appearance of a few Nazis attracted little interest” What then made the ACLU’s defense of Skokie so controversial? Neier blames himself “the fault it became clear was in our my failure to provide adeuate information to the membership It was not enough Skokie proved to say that the ACLU defends everyone’s right to speak” Apparently many fairly recent and progressive members within the ACLU not familiar with the demonstrations of the 60’s while affirming a general and abstract right to speech found themselves backtracking when said right became a tangible defensible reality for those to whom they were ideologically or politically opposed More than 4000 ACLU members would respond to Skokie by sending in their letters of resignation despite the unanimous approval of the state and national leadership to move forward with the case In chapter 5 Neier discusses several related legal cases to Skokie including that of Rockwell vs Morris arguing for the Nazi right to demonstrate in NYC’s Union Suare Park and a fascinating and controversial case in 1977 involving the ACLU’s defense of both members of the KKK and black soldiers against the US Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton CA another display of “poisonousness evenhandedness” which unlike Skokie would elicit great internal dissent between the again progressive local chapter of the ACLU and the principled national leadershipIn all fairness Neier devotes one chapter “They Have Rights?” to presenting the various arguments made by the opposition as to why Nazis should be prohibited from rallying and a subseuent chapter “The Risks of Freedom” countering them He particularly excels in the remaining chapters of the book demonstrating via copious historical examples how the very arguments proposed and policies employed to suppress the speech of Nazis or the KKK whom we would justifiably regard as deplorable are often turned around by authorities to suppress groups we might find laudable or on the side of justice civil rights workers anti war protestors and anti nuclear or environmental activists Consider several examples The National Espionage Act of World War I punished the uttering writing or publishing of disloyal profane scurrilous or abusive language intended to cause contempt scored contumely or disrepute to the form of government of the United States the Constitution the flag or the uniform of the Army and Navy State and local laws patterned after the act and contributed to the gravest period of political repression in American history — denying the freedom of speech or political action to Communists displaying a red flag at a youth camp Jehovah's Witnesses breaching the peace through distribution of anti Catholic literature and the Industrial Workers of the World Wobblies Though meant to only apply in time of war the remaining provisions of the act were sweeping enough to have allowed the Nixon administration to indict Daniel Ellsberg in December 1971 for disposing publicly the contents of the Pentagon papers p 109 117 Chicago Mayor Daley expressed support of a proposal to prohibit depictions of excessive violence on television; when asked to provide an example of such violence he referred to a documentary including graphic footage of Chicago police beating up anti war and anti Daley protestors p 140 Joseph McCarthy and his colleagues in their zeal to defend America against enemies of freedom prosecuted Stalinists and anti Stalinists alike — fellow travelers and liberals they mistakenly identified as Communists p 146 Parliament adopted the Public Order Act in an effort to suppress English fascists in the 1930's making it a crime to use in any public place threatening abusive or insulting words with the intent to provoke a breach of the peace and to empower police to suppress such political marches The act also prohibited the wearing in public places uniforms expressing a political point of view During the Cold War and beyond the government invoked the Public Order Act to suppress the demonstrations of Communists and later anti nuclear activists pp 149 159 In 1965 Parliament adopted the Race Relations Act making the incitement of racial hatred a crime and prohibiting the distribution of abusive threatening or insulting literature directed at any racial group In a move that the National Front would find most pleasing such measures were adopted by parties ranging from student unions on college campuses to the United Nations General Assembly to suppress the speech of Zionists campaigning for a Jewish homeland Meanwhile the National Front circumvented the Act by adopting code words substituting for race ie immigrants pp 149 159 In Britain Parliament has the law word observes Never A parliamentary law abridging the freedom of speech is only susceptible to challenge by Parliament itself Under the Official Secrets Act Britons are routinely denied information about the proceedings of their government and laws against libel and public comment on judicial proceedings are used to curb the public p 150Noting that England has no euivalent of the First Amendment Neier notes that the British citizen whose freedom of speech has been curbed cannot challenge the Public Order Act the Official Secrets Act or the Race Relations Act They can only resist and hope that officials charged with administering the laws will be wise and will exercise self restraint p 158According to Nier though Thomas Jefferson and John Milton “understood the risks of freedom they knew that it is far dangerous to entrust the government with the power to determine what doctrines may be safely expressed by the people p 136 it is far dangerous to allow government to deny the freedom to speak to the enemies of freedom Almost inevitably government confuses the enemies of its policies with the enemies of freedom p 146”I found Defending My Enemy American Nazis the Skokie Case and the Risks of Freedom to be very educational reading on this topic providing an insight against how a Holocaust survivor could defend the constitutional right of Nazis to hold a march in the United States Others are certainly entitled to disagree with Mr Neier on this point refusing the recognition of free speech to those who espouse ideologies adversely at odds with their own or America's founding principles But as Mr Neier demonstrates while it might provide us with great personal or emotional satisfaction to suppress by city ordinance or even at times through vigilante violence the speech of those we disagree with or consider a threat there may be long term conseuences to doing so “The best conseuences of the Nazis’ proposal to march in Skokie is that it produced speech a great deal it stimulated discussion of the evils of Nazism and of the Holocaust than any event since the Israelis captured Adolf Eichman in Argentina in 1960 The worst conseuences of the Nazis proposal to march in Skokie is that the argument against permitting the march have fostered the impression that a community can asert that those whose views are anathema to it can be forbidden to enter its boundaries It is not the first time a town or neighborhood has asserted a power to exclude views or dislikes from its own “turf” The practice however had been largely discredited after Mayor Frank Hague lost his battle forty years ago to keep labor organizers out of Jersey City Skokie revived the idea that it might be legitimate” p 145Page references refer to the 1st 1979 edition

  2. J J says:

    A fantastic review of the challenges of protecting offensive speech Most importantly the book reviews the reasons against protecting offensive speech and uickly build a strong defense against them

  3. ghost ✨ blm ghost ✨ blm says:

    Would it be the same if we had people marching in the streets for terrorism? Would the alt right defend it even then? The author unknowingly acknowledges who he is at best Most Jews know other Jews who are so filled with self hatred that they are the worst anti Semites Calls to violence is not freedom of speech marching down a lane filled with holocaust survivors threatening them is not it

  4. Relstuart Relstuart says:

    The Skokie case was an action where the ACLU defended a Nazi organizer trying to conduct a march of American Nazis in the town of Skokie IL This town was over half Jewish and had a large number of concentration camp survivors The town passed a couple ordinances designed to block the Nazis from marching The book is written by an ACLU Jewish attorney defending the ACLU and their record for standing up for free speech even speech they personally loathed While the focus was on this case the author also raises several other cases the ACLU supported free speech rights for KKK members and went over a very brief history of the issue in America and the ACLU's record of defending free speech for all One of the few passages I highlighted Most Jews know other Jews who are so filled with self hatred that they are the worst anti Semites

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *