proposed “march” was intended to protestna Skokie Park District permit ordinancenrequiring $350,000 in liabilitynand damage insurance, and was to include—notnspeeches or handbills—butnthe display of placards bearing suchnslogans as “Free Speech for the WhitenMan” and “Free Speech for WhitenAmericans.” The Village was advisednthat the demonstration would take placenon a Sunday, would include less thann50 people and would last approximatelynthirty minutes. Although the Villagenmade no claim that the demonstratorsnwould commit any acts other than anpeaceful parade with the placards describednabove, it nevertheless sought ancourt order enjoining the proposed demonstration.nIn addition, the Village hastilynpassed a series of civil and criminalnordinances which in substance: (1) prohibitedndemonstrations “on behalf of”npolitical parties by persons wearingn”military-style” uniforms, (2) forbadenthe distribution of literature portrayingn”lack of virtue” in, or inviting “hostility”ntoward, persons or groups “by reasonnof reference to religious, racial, ethnic,nnational or regional association,” andn(3) imposed an insurance requirement asna precondition to obtaining any kind ofnan assembly permit.nThe Village’s actions were as ill-conceivednas its ordinances were sloppilyndrafted. The first ordinance, prohibitingnpolitical gatherings by persons in “military-style”nuniforms, would have equallyncondemned “among other things, annappearance by members of the AmericannLegion in support of the candidates ofnthe Democratic or Republican parties.”nThe second would have prohibited notnjust racial epithets (ironically, it wouldnapparently not have restricted the signsnthe Nazis proposed to display), butnwould have barred the circulation innSkokie of such things as the Bible, thenMerchant of Venice, Churchill’s wartimenspeeches denouncing “the Hun,”nand Greek newspapers condemning thenTurkish occupation of Cyprus. The insurancenrequirement, which effectivelynimposed an impossible burden on groupsnsufficiently unpopular or controversialnto be able to comply, was conceded bynthe Village to be unconstitutional.nThe Village’s request for an injunctionnwas based on the theory that Nazinsymbols were uniquely beyond the protectionsnof the First Amendment. Bothnthe State and Federal Appeals Courtsnultimately rejected that claim as inconsistentnwith repeated decisions of thenUnited States Supreme Court. The Village’snfurther claim, that its citizensnwould be subject to “psychic trauma”nif the demonstration were held, wasnequally unpersuasive for the simplenreason that nothing compelled the inhabitantsnof Skokie to either attendnor witness the proposed march. Fromnthe foregoing recital it should be abundantlynclear that the Village’s actionsnwere constitutionally untenable. Anynconclusion to the contrary would in factnhave been appalling—wo communitynin this country can arrest the flow ofnideas, however controversial or evennodious, by claiming special sensitivity,nhowever sympathetic. Otherwise wenwould rapidly disintegrate into a crazyquiltnof Balkanized enclaves where anynaggrieved group is legally free to excludenfrom its boundaries the ideas, literaturenand even the symbols of its historicnantagonist. There has been not thenslightest recognition of these consequencesnby either Skokie or its supporters,na staggering shortsightednessnwhich is particularly contemptible innlight of the fact that Belfast alone isnsufficient warning on the point.nThe involvement of the ACLU,nmoreover, was just as inescapable asnthe constitutional points it asserted.nDisgraceful as it is to relate, it wouldnhave been impossible for a private lawyernto accept the case without riskingneconomic destruction, a fevered situationnwhich the press (with a few honorablenexceptions) did little or nothing toncool. If the constitutional points werento be made at all it was the ACLU whichnhad to make them, and the fact that itsnstaff attorneys continued calmly to donso, in the teeth of gross public misun­nnnderstanding, savage personal abuse, andnrepeated physical threats, is an examplenof personal and professional couragennot commonly encountered.nConservatives who use the Skokienincident to heap abuse upon the ACLUnare accordingly wholly misguided. Despitenthe ACLU’s preponderance of liberalnpersonnel and its occasionalnexcesses of zeal, the stand it took atnSkokie was a profoundly conservativenone. Throughout its history the ACLUnhas thoroughly understood, with thensame icy clarity displayed by the framersnof the Constitution, the institutionalnincompetence of the government to determinenideological orthodoxy as wellnas its constant itch to do so. It hasnequally understood, and combated, theneternal impulse of the bureaucrat tonignore or trample the rights of the citizenn—particularly the unpopular one. Andnthroughout its history the ACLU hasnshown much less tendency than mostnconservative groups to contrive ideologicallyncongenial but sophistic justificationsnfor unconstitutional conductn—to catch the devil by cutting downnthe law.nFinally, the correctness of thenACLU’s conduct has been amply confirmednby later events. Despite the factnthat its arguments were upheld in theirnentirety by the courts, the Republic didnnot totter and the Fourth Reich failednto arrive. Quite the contrary, it was thenNazis who flinched and refused to appear,ndisplaying in this respect considerablynless courage than the black sixyear-oldsnwho walked through abuse andnhatred to integrate the country’s schools.nAnd because the Nazis’ self-proclaimedn”constituency” has not the slightestndifficulty in recognizing cowardice, itnis hardly surprising that the Chicagonband of cardboard Hitlers has now returnednto obscurity. The enduring legacynof Skokie is the memory of a gallant andnsuccessful defense of the rule of law,nand it is high time for conservatives tonrealize that in conducting that defensenthe ACLU was fighting their fight. DnJanuary/February 1980n