Skokie and the Bandit

Featuring a heated free speech debate.

By and

Brace yourselves, it’s a long one. Due to popular demand, Jonah has—graciously—pulled Sarah out of the world of obscure legal nerdery and onto The Dispatch’s flagship podcast to discuss the famous Nazis-marching-in-Skokie case. After a period of extended throat clearing—featuring a list of proposed baby names from Sarah that may inspire calls to CPS—the two set the stage for their debate. Sarah believes that this case was one of the proudest moments in American history; Jonah is unconvinced.

This episode is sponsored by our friends at The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Head to thefire.org/update and subscribe to The FIRE Update today. 

Show Notes

-WATCH: Jonah and Sarah debate free speech

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By and
Comments (136)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    David.M.Max

    As with basically everyone else, I tend to side with Sarah -- on the grounds that giving the political branches discretion in this matter will inevitably (as we see in other countries), result in Nazi-comparison creep.

    One point I thought might be worth adding. Having a content-neutral and viewpoint-neutral bright line rule in favor of free expression (like the Brandenburg line of decisions) can actually be helpful for social peace. This was visible in the 2000s and 2010s when the Mohammed cartoon controversy roiled numerous European countries and Canada. Proponents of legal punishment for the cartoon publishers were able to point to the fact that these countries do ban political expression on content- and viewpoint-based grounds (such as Holocaust denial and racially inflammatory content), so why can we as Muslims not obtain similar protection? This led to pushback from publishers who felt they had to publish the cartoons (including ones which *were* needlessly and senselessly offensive) in order to try and hold the line of free expression and parody when it comes to religious topics. America didn't need to do any of that, and was able to avoid violence on this count precisely because it didn't make any content based distinctions, even in the most extreme cases (such as Skokie).

    Collapse
  2. Evan V

    Usually Remnant episodes with Dispatch guests can be a little too heavy on pundity, self-indulgance, or too conversational BUT this was a really great debate where both sides offered very compelling arguments which was really thought-provoking.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Chris

    Trying to catch up on episodes, really glad I listened to this one! This is why I subscribed to the Dispatch, a rational, civil discussion with critical thinking and evidence to back up viewpoints. While I still probably favor Sarah's approach, Jonah made a lot of good points on a tough issue. Thank you for this!

    Baby Names...with a last name like "Brown" we had some limitations...we really couldn't name a boy James or Charles, that would have seemed kind of cruel. However, my (non-history major) wife was insistent that if our firstborn was a girl, that we could name her Ava. Negative I said...we cannot name a daughter Ava Brown...or Braun. I prevailed on that one!

    Collapse
  4. Matt D.

    This episode needs more discussion. There needs to be a studied part 2 and not just between the original participants. We'll likely need a few other parts.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Mary

    Fantastic episode. Sarah kicked Jonah’s butt.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Seth B

    Great episode.

    Sarah wins this debate handily - even if she still hasn't figured out that the song is "I've got YOU, babe" and not "I GOTCHA, babe".

    Collapse
  7. Sjrubert

    I've gotta think there's some kind of "time, place and manner" or even "compelling interest" argument to be made to reconcile Sarah and Jonah's views on this. The village of Skokie obviously understands why the place an manner of the march are abhorrent and shouldn't be permitted. I don't see any inherent interest the Federal Government might have in stepping in.

    I also have to wonder if Sarah would be all absolutist like this over a 2nd Amendment question.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Marianwcates

    I'm late listening to this episode. I come out on Jonah's side on the question of the Nazis marching in Skokie.

    Collapse
  9. Aaron H Frank

    Does Jonah know how many people don't like his speech? I am a fan as evidenced by my continued subscription to "The Dispatch". But there are many out there who would consider Jonah's opinions "violence".

    We are sliding down that slippery slope as well. It's not a hypothetical. We've already had the feds investigate parents at a school board meeting for "angry" speech.

    https://reason.com/2021/10/06/ag-merrick-garland-fbi-critical-race-theory-parents-schools-domestic-terrorists/

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    E7a56c3893

    I think that in a world that lacks robust free speech norms, the idea of the "community" as a fundamental unit of analysis becomes incoherent.

    If communities can decide which speech should be tolerable or productive, that empowers the status quo and any dissent to the contrary can be construed as unproductive, obscene, or offensive. Sarah already shared a few incidents where that occurred.

    I think a celebration of free speech, and the constitutional defense of even heinous speech, might not seem sexy in a country that has several decades of codifying these protections, but such a luxury is not enjoyed by many people around the world; so so many people must tolerate the humiliation and indignity of censoring their speech, to smile to their oppressor, and recite state-approved alternative facts contrary to reality, because that is what survival demands of them.

    I don't like Nazis marching down the streets, but to live in a society where I may judge them and speak freely to counter their hateful ideology is a civil society and a good society. I choose to deny their hate. I hope the subsequent generation makes the same choice. But nothing is unsettled or "done". Democracy is always at every moment unfolding and renewing, and our vigilance should be constant.

    I think this tendency to view certain debates as "settled" or "beneath us" is unproductive at best, and a dangerous habit at worst. We should confront untruths, propaganda, and hate in all its forms. If we live in a racist society, though your moral convictions may lead you to believe that there is no debate to be had, ultimately the purpose of debate is to convince an audience, and if the audience errs or undecided in a particular moral question, it is only right to enter the ring to bring that audience towards a better perspective. On the other hand, if a propagandist profits from their victim complex, then I think it makes sense to allow them to enter a debate, if only to highlight their absurdity and hypocrisy.

    Debate is not merely an exercise in expressing fact, or truthful information. It is primarily an exercise in persuasion—to inhabit an opponent's mind and to contort them in an audience, to bait them into an untenable position, or to expose their poor temperament.

    Nazis, and I might add the racist strain within the Republican Party, are not the spawn of the devil, nor a frightful virus whose mere exposure risks an uncontrollable outbreak. They are buffoons who rest their dignity and manhood on a pseudoscience fairy tale and a demagogue who screams loudly about the ideal, masculine man and inhabits none of those ideals the slightest. They are a clown show and it is only right that we laugh at them, become amused by them, to look at them with curious bewilderment, and, if necessary, layout in precise, logical detail, why they are indeed clowns.Expand full comment

    Collapse
Load More