Hate Crime Law Voided by Court

The Supreme Court wisely struck down the St. Paul hate crime law. Suppressing racist speech will not eliminate racism. Admittedly, suppression does give momentary respite to those who suffer the sting of hateful epithets, and it does convey an institutional opposition to bigotry. But these are short-lived benefits achieved at high cost. Not only are the delicate, vital values of free speech seriously jeopardized, but suppression inevitably creates a climate of thought control, a habit of censorship and an atmosphere of reactionary conformity, none of which advances the real goals of eliminating discrimination, promoting diversity and building a pluralist society.

Aryeh Neir, executive director of the ACLU during the tumultuous debate over his organization’s defense of the Nazis’ right to march in Skokie, Ill., later explained how a Jew could support such a thing. “Because we Jews are uniquely vulnerable, I believe we can win only brief respite from persecution in a society in which encounters are settled by power. As a Jew, therefore . . . I want restraints which prohibit those in power from interfacing with my right to speak, my right to publish, or my right to gather with others who also feel threatened. . . . To defend myself, I must restrain power with freedom, even if the temporary beneficiaries are the enemies of freedom.”

Lasting solutions to society’s serious problems have never been achieved through censorship.

STEPHEN F. ROHDE

Los Angeles

The writer is co-author of “Foundations of Freedom” and co-chair of the Los Angeles County Bar Assn. Bill of Rights Bicentennial Committee.