| Unfortunately, I have not been able to get a full enough exposition of the arguments used in the Skokie case. However, the risk of riot was mentioned, as a rationale for demanding insurance coverage as a condition of the permit, and intimidation was mentioned as regards the survivors. Oddly enough, if Skokie had not obviously passed the insurance ordinance to deal with the Nazis, it might have been upheld. Also, the Court did mention that the effect on the community, and especially survivors, was something to weigh in considering the case, but held that the offense could not be adequately distinguished from other strong forms of disapproval that would not be sufficient to veto the Nazi's right to march. It mentioned that if the citizens were a captive audience, or the march involved trespass or vandalism, then Skokie would win. My own position is that the route, through residential areas, in effect made some residents a captive audience, since they should not have to flee their homes in order to avoid the parade, and that the indemnity was reasonable on its face, if it would be reasonable had it been established policy, considering the drain on the town budget to repair any damage that might ensue if things got unruly. Thus, game and point go to Skokie........ |
