CreateDebate


Debate Info

2
0
Yes. No.
Debate Score:2
Arguments:2
Total Votes:4
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes. (2)

Debate Creator

Coachkevo12(3) pic



Does the First Amendment protect your right to march with symbols of hate?

THE CASE

You are the mayor of Skokie, Ill., a community with a large Jewish population, including thousands of Holocaust survivors. Members of a political party with a history of divisive and discriminatory views want to stage a march in your town. In past public gatherings, the members of this party have worn uniforms that resemble the robes worn by the Ku Klux Klan (a hate group that promotes white supremacy) and armbands with swastikas, a symbol of the Nazi Party. The Nazi Party, led by Adolf Hitler, was responsible for the death of millions of Jews and members of other minority groups in the World War II Holocaust.

Although the party has said this march is about protesting new rules limiting political demonstrations in public parks, many members of your community suspect that it will also be used as an opportunity to promote the group’s anti-Semitic and anti-integration views and to intimidate local residents. The marchers argue that because they have given fair warning of when and where the march will take place (in addition to public announcements, they have advertised the planned gathering in the local newspaper) residents who are fearful can avoid the protest. 

Community members are rallying together to try to stop this demonstration, which many see as similar to Nazi demonstrations against Jews during World War II because of the views being expressed and the display of swastikas. A local circuit court has ruled that the march cannot take place because of the real and significant potential that it will turn violent. But the party is appealing the ruling, and your community is looking to you for guidance on what to do next. 

Should you allow this protest to proceed?

Yes.

Side Score: 2
VS.

No.

Side Score: 0
0 points

The Nazi Party, led by Adolf Hitler, was responsible for the death of millions of Jews and members of other minority groups in the World War II Holocaust.

Yeah, but you see the sheer hypocrisy of it is what gets me. You label the people Hitler killed as "Jews", but of course they were also Communists, and the leadership of your country isn't that much better than Hitler when it comes to giving Communists a fair platform. That's why nobody ever mentions that these people were Communists. It's always "Jews", so you don't have to admit the similarities between America and Nazi Germany.

Side: Yes.
0 points

As a standard, by law, our government cannot stop their freedom of speech. So long as it stops there, and does not bridge over to action. The government can have then apply for the necessary permits, and allocate the necessary time for them to be there for their event. But the government has no right to hinder their rights.

Just saying that they will stop it, because of the "possibility" of violence. Shows that they have not kept their eyes open for this entire time. Especially concerning instances like the recent BLM rallies that repeatedly turned violence in the months prior. Something that was a foregone conclusion, given how those gatherings operated.

They can supply police to keep the peace and to break up the march when/if it becomes violent/unruly. That's it.

Side: Yes.
No arguments found. Add one!