not follow.”n1 his reviewer is not a devotee ofnRichard Nixon. It makes him feel goodnthat this should not be regarded as anpro-Nixon book, despite the author’snFoolish ConsistencynAryeh Neier: Defending My Enemy:nAmericanNazis, the Skokie Case, andnthe Risks of Freedom; E. P. Dutton &nCo.; New York.nby Clarence CarsonnA. foolish consistency,” Emersonnsaid, “is the hobgoblin of little minds.”nThe American Civil Liberties Union hasntime and again provided dramatic proofnof the validity of Emerson’s adage. Morenoften than is generally known the ACLUnhas come to the rescue of and defendednthe Ku Klux Klan and American Nazisnin the courts. ‘Tis said that whennGeorge Lincoln Rockwell, the late Nazinleader, traveled around the country hentook a list of the representatives of thenACLU in the cities he would visit withnhim. If in trouble, he would contact thenlocal representative, and likely as notnthe ACLU would come to his legalndefense.nThis quixotic activity reached a newnplateau when the ACLU defended thenNazi effort to make a protest marchnthrough the streets of Skokie, Illinois.nSkokie has a large number of Jewishninhabitants among whom there are angoodly number who had suffered in concentrationncamps. As if that were notnenough, Jews are well represented innthe membership of and play a leadingnrole in the ACLU. On top of that, thenACLU lost several thousand membersnand contributions estimated at severalnthousands of dollars.nDr. Carson writes his essays fromnAlabama.n161nChronicles of Culturenhigh regard for the former President.nThis is a book about injustice paradingnas justice. It is a book about powerndivorced from responsibility, and thenarrogant abuse of that power by thenmolders of opinion. DnWhy.’ Why would an organizationnwith no known sympathy for Nazis gonto such efforts to see that they werenallowed to march in the streets.’ AryehnNeier wrote this book with the statednpurpose of answering this. His answersnamount to: first, the ACLU is devotednto the principle of defending everyone’snright to free speech; second, he maintainsnthat Jews have a special interestnin the right to free speech. They are anminority in the United States; theynhave often been persecuted; therefore,nthey should defend the rights of all whonare unpopular and persecuted. He statesnhis case:n”Jews cannot hide from the Nazis innSkokie. For their own safety’s sake,nthey must give the devil —the Nazisn— the benefit of law. It is dangerousnto let the Nazis have their say. But itnis more dangerous by far to destroynthe laws that deny anyone the powernto silence the Jews if Jews shouldnneed to cry out to each other and tonthe world for succor. When the timencomes for Jews to speak, to publish,nand to march in behalf of their ownnsafety, Illinois and the United Statesnmust not be allowed to interfere. ThenNazis, I respond to those who asknhow I, a Jew, can defend freedomnfor Nazis, must be free to speak andnbecause I must be free to speak.”nMr. Neier is guilty of a foolish consistency.nThe ACLU has committednfunds to show that they are consistentnin their foolish consistency. Americannliberals are caught, too, in a foolishnconsistency, though many are lessnadamant about it than the leadershipnnnof the ACLU. But what are they beingnconsistent with.’ Mr. Neier claims thatnit is in defense of freedom of speech.nEver since its founding, the ACLU hasnprofessed its belief that speech shouldnbe as free as the air. It is of suchnmoment, they have held, that everyone’snright to it should be defended.nNow, I think that the ACLU has beennfoolishly consistent in defense of thenfreedom of speech. They have beennfoolishly consistent because freedomnof speech is only one-half of a principle.nAll freedom has a corollary, namely,nthat in its exercise you do no injury tonothers. The ACLU has fought consistentlynover the years to prevent peoplenfrom being held responsible for whatnthey said and wrote even when it wasnbursting with the potential for injurynto others. That is a foolish consistency.nOut free speech was not the realnissue in the Skokie case, despite the factnthat Mr. Neier invokes it throughoutnthe pages of his book. The leadership ofnthe ACLU was not being foolishlynconsistent in defending the free speechnof Nazis. They were defending somethingnelse. What they were defendingnwas this: The right of groups to usenintimidation to get their way. I amnaware of the strained argument that innorder to speak freely it is necessary, say,nto wear black uniforms, jackboots, andnNazi armbands (or to fly a red flag, ornto sport obscenities on T-shirts, or tonpull off one’s clothes in public, or whatever).nAny lawyer who would advance sonfeeble an argument before a court shouldnbe sentenced forthwith to six days ofnfasting in sackcloth and ashes; at thenend of which he should be made to returnnto the court and explain the differencenbetween speech and symbols.nWith his mind thus clarified even anveteran ACLU lawyer could probablyncome up with a passable distinction.nThere is one other possible issue tonbe got out of the way before taking upnthe real one. It is the constitutional rightnof assembly. If there was a constitutionalnissue in the Skokie case, this was then