Holocaust Survivor’s Defense of Free Speech Resonates Today

In the summer of 1977, a contentious legal battle unfolded in Skokie, a suburb of Chicago with a significant Jewish population of Holocaust survivors. The National Socialist Party of America sought permission to march through the streets, prompting local leaders to file a lawsuit aimed at preventing the event. They argued that the display of swastikas would amount to a “symbolic assault.” As tensions escalated, it became evident that some Jewish groups were prepared to respond violently should the march proceed. In an unexpected turn, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) intervened to defend the Nazis’ right to free speech, a decision that drew both ire and support from various quarters.

Leading the ACLU at that time was Aryeh Neier, a Jewish man who had narrowly escaped the Holocaust himself. His commitment to defending the rights of extremists was consistent with the ACLU’s founding principles, established in 1920 to protect expression “however radical, however violent.” The ACLU had previously taken on cases involving the Ku Klux Klan and civil rights activists, navigating the turbulent social landscape of the United States.

Neier faced backlash as he represented the Nazis, receiving letters condemning his actions as naive and detrimental to society. The juxtaposition of his commitment to free speech with the hateful ideology of the Nazis troubled some supporters. One letter resonated deeply with him: “I love free speech more than I detest the Nazis.” Neier viewed this sentiment as reflective of a binary that he believed was flawed. He argued that the defense of Nazi rights was essential to maintain the freedom of all: “To defend myself, I must restrain power with freedom, even if the temporary beneficiaries are the enemies of freedom,” he later wrote in his book, Defending My Enemy.

The philosophical debate around whether the tolerant should tolerate the intolerant has long haunted liberalism. Karl Popper articulated this paradox in his work, The Open Society and Its Enemies, arguing against tolerance for the intolerant. Neier, however, contended that such an approach ultimately leads to greater suppression. He cited the Brandenburg v. Ohio case, where the Supreme Court established that speech inciting violence could only be restricted if it incited “imminent lawless action.” This ruling became a cornerstone for protecting the rights of all individuals, including those espousing hateful ideologies.

The legal outcome in Skokie ultimately allowed the Nazis to march, but their leader canceled the event due to concerns over public support. In the aftermath, a Holocaust Remembrance Museum was established in Skokie, symbolizing the community’s resilience. Neier concluded that the ACLU’s efforts preserved the legitimacy of American democracy, stating, “The Nazis must be free to speak, Neier wrote, because ‘Jews must be free to speak and because I must be free to speak.’”

Now, at 88 years old, Neier remains an advocate for free speech and human rights. Living in New York City, he reflects on a life dedicated to these principles. His journey began as a child, escaping Nazi Germany and seeking refuge in England just weeks before the onset of war. His family’s harrowing experiences during the war shaped his worldview and commitment to civil liberties.

Neier’s career includes significant contributions to the ACLU and co-founding Helsinki Watch, which later evolved into Human Rights Watch. He also served as the inaugural president of the Open Society Foundation, established by George Soros. Despite the challenges posed by contemporary political climates, Neier continues to advocate for free speech and democratic values.

In an era when free speech is increasingly contested, Neier’s insights resonate. He recently remarked, “The worst aspect of what is going on is the absence, or partial absence, of resistance in the United States.” Reflecting on the political landscape, he expressed concern over how past administrations have targeted dissenters, drawing parallels to the Sedition Act during World War II and the era of McCarthyism.

Neier believes today’s challenges are unique, as contemporary political figures, such as Donald Trump, target institutions rather than just radicals. He warns that this could jeopardize the fundamental tenets of democracy. His thoughts extend to the international arena, where he sees the United Nations facing unprecedented challenges.

As Neier navigates discussions surrounding current political leaders and issues, he remains steadfast in his belief that upholding the principles of free speech is critical. He critiques not only the rise of authoritarianism but also the tactics employed by leaders who undermine democratic processes.

In a time of increasing polarization, Neier’s legacy serves as a poignant reminder of the importance of defending free expression, irrespective of the speaker’s views. His life’s work underscores the belief that the protection of free speech is essential for the survival of democratic ideals.