1
25
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25609/archive/files/36966bd615f1c4e73c67c76f9adb4d1f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=uVMkJmhP9lzf-4RherIFCT7SdgHNcWIvUV-UYbjcFgAT9O9d4J8RmqxCcUmG8WgZn7uMo1m66uXHoae7Z7yq7rHkw6eCn2fn81iWHlFF1OSRi8cySHUiF2tCH6lbyDNJUiKnVC35FBgtLfiDwHCdkKWvRX21GBEp4sSSTC1i5nhgWEaSO0w7DFGaSiF1xUwPeAg1-TsZXbL3iOSpLDONjTiQrAIRuph0gtXpLgOBjBhg8tn2KiG5RDUi%7EAYn0ErEKs%7E8BzS1SHKRQ-N51eZrAnyvykUAuSZldL-3e9-j9VZwTl7kOP3xBegvVbl-kVFkPozZRwSB8A9fZn5D4kNH7A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a2c97effa6c3df038804ed6716996f27
PDF Text
Text
Collin vs. Skokie
A classic case of protection of ‘repulsive’ beliefs
By Jim Szczepaniak
Any person is entitled to publicly
present his beliefs - even when that
person identifies himself as a Nazi and
even when his beliefs are represented by
the swastika. The U.S. Supreme Court
upheld that ruling almost 10 years ago in
the cast of Collin vs. Skokie.
The neo-Nazis’ effort to demonstrate
in Skokie, argued for more than a year
in state and federal courts, has been
characterized by some as a classic First
Amendment case. Others continue to
believe that Frank Collin’s planned
demonstration on the steps of Skokie
Village Hall is a special case; that
mitigating circumstances clouded the
issue.
The uproar began in early 1977, when
Collin sent a letter to the Skokie Park
District asking for a permit to hold a
rally in one of the parks.
Park trustees responded by stating
that Collin would be required to post an
insurance bond of $350,000.
A SIMILAR TACTIC imposed by the
Chicago Park District was temporarily
keeping Collin out of Marquette Park,
close to Collin’s headquarters. The
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),
representing Collin, had taken the
matter of the Chicago insurance
requirement to court, labeling it as an
unconstitutional restriction on Collin’s
First Amendment right of assembly and
speech since the insurance was virtually
impossible to obtain.
When Collin heard about the Skokie
Park District’s requirements, he adopted
a new tactic: he sent a letter to the
Village of Skokie, announcing his
intention to demonstrate May 1 in
objection to the park district’s tactics.
The demonstration was to be an
orderly one, according to Collin. He and
a number of followers would stand on
the steps of the village hall, dressed in
their neo-Nazi uniforms. No speeches
would be given.
Collin’s choice of location was perfect
for his purposes: Skokie, with a
population of approximately 60,000, was
recognized for having one of the largest
communities of Holocaust survivors in
the nation. Up to 10 percent of the
“The liberties of any person
are the liberties of all of us.
The liberties of none are safe
unless the liberties of all are
protected.”
-Justice William 0. Douglas
population included survivors or immediate relatives, according to one estimate.
IN THE DAYS following Collin’s
announcement, Skokie officials decided
that the best strategy would be to “keep
the lowest profile possible and minimize
the publicity,” according to Harvey
Schwartz. Schwartz, now a Cook County
Circuit Court associate judge, was
Skokie’s corporation counsel at the time.
“We were operating on the general
premise that Collin had an almost
absolute right to hold the demonstration,” Schwartz said.
Officials began to alter that approach
once news of Collin’s demonstration
became public.
Skokie Mayor Albert Smith, Schwartz
and other officials held a public meeting
with some clergymen, representatives of
the Anti-Defamation League and residents. “Our goal was to allay people’s
concerns and to present our position that
Collin’s group had a First Amendment
right to rally,” Schwartz said.
THAT POSITION WAS met with “an
absolute swarm of protest” from
survivors and other residents; people
were “highly agitated and emotional,”
Schwartz said. “You could tell that this
was now a major issue.”
Media reports about “Nazi marches
through the village” began to appear on
the front pages of publications around
the country. Anti-Semitic literature
distributed in the community was
automatically attributed to Collin. And
Skokie trustees, responding to the
unanimous pressure from their constituents, decided to seek an injunction
against the demonstration in Cook
County Circuit Court.
On April 28, Judge Joseph Wosik
heard arguments from the village and
Collin. Among the five witnesses for the
village was Sol Goldstein, a prominent
leader in the survivor community.
Goldstein testified that he could not
promise that he could contain himself
from committing violence against the
Nazi demonstrators.
His testimony encapsulated the village’s main argument for injunction:
while there was no contention that Collin
or his followers would engage in any
illegal activity, village officials argued,
angry residents certainly would. The
demonstrators’ safety could not be
ensured.
DAVID GOLDBERGER, THE ACLU
attorney representing Collin, argued that
the court could not prevent Collin’s
constitutionally protected demonstration; the village had not attempted to
prove, much less proved beyond doubt,
that Collin would break the law.
Wosik issued an injunction barring
Collin and his party members from
parading in uniform in the village on
May 1.
Collin’s reaction was almost immediate: he would come to Skokie on April
30, the day prior to his originally
announced rally.
That Saturday morning, Skokie officials got an emergency hearing from
Circuit Court Judge Harold Sullivan, a
Skokie resident. Using the same argument submitted to Wosik, the officials
said the demonstration had to be
stopped. Sullivan agreed and expanded
Wosik’s ruling, ordering that Collin and
his party be banned from appearing in
Skokie in uniform “until further notice of
the court .”
EVEN WHILE SULLIVAN was
making his decision, hundreds of
community members and people who
had come from other parts of the
country were gathering on the village
green.
Schwartz said the gathering substantially altered the way he viewed the
case.
“As the crowd grew, they were
singing songs, talking with each other.
As the time got nearer for the planned
demonstration, there was an almost
unnatural intensity in the mood of the
crowd.
“You could literally see the crowd’s
collective reaction as the news came
that the Nazis were on their way, then
the rumor that the judge had expanded
the injunction but that Collin wasn’t
going to obey it,” Schwartz said.
COLLIN DID OBEY Sullivan’s order;
he turned back when Skokie police
intercepted his party at the Edens Expy.
and informed him about the ruling.
But back at the village green,
Schwartz said, “Holocaust survivors
were getting hysterical, literally hysterical. They were obviously reliving
something that led up to the Holcaust.
You could not logically reason with them
at the time, explaining that this was
some group of punks playing a game.
For them, (Collin’s appearance) was
nothing less than the Nazis coming back
this time to get them for good..”
The following week Skokie trustees
passed three ordinances aimed at
preventing any future Collin appearances
in the village. The first required that the
village issue a permit for any parades or
demonstrations on public streets or
sidewalks. Applicants had to provide 30
days’ written notice and post $350,000 in
insurance liability. Officials could waive
any of the requirements if they chose to.
The second ordinance made it illegal
to publicly display any “symbols
offensive to the community” and banned
parades by political party members in
“military style” uniforms. The third
banned the distribution of any literature
�containing “group libel,” or literature
which sought to libel a collective group
of people based on religious or ethnic
beliefs.
THE THREE ORDINANCES were
all clearly aimed at preventing Collin
from coming to the village, in the
judgment of the ACLU. They had
something else in common, according to
Goldberger: they all constituted prior
restraint.
The ordinances were the only legal
avenue open to the village, Schwartz
said. “We were battling on all the issues
that we could raise,” he said. “Now the
ACLU had to take us to court.”
The ACLU did exactly that, maintaining that all three ordinances were
unconstitutional. The Illinois Appellate
Court in July, 1977, agreed in part. The
appellate court ruling stated that while
the Nazis had the right to assemble in
Skokie, the swastika could not be
displayed.
Upon appeal, the Illinois Supreme
Court decided the case in January, 1978,
stating that the demonstration could not
be prohibited. Nor could the display of
the swastika. “We do not doubt that the
sight of this symbol is abhorrent to the
Jewish citizens of Skokie,” stated the
ruling , “and that the survivors of the
Nazi persecutions, tormented by their
recollections, may have strong feelings
regarding its display. Yet it is entirely
clear that this factor does not justify
enjoining defendants’ speech.”
IN A FEBRUARY, 1978, ruling,
Judge Bernard Decker of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois declared all three village
ordinances unconstitutional. Following a
similar ruling on the Chicago Park
District’s insurance requirement, Decker stated that the first Skokie law
imposed “a virtually insuperable obstacle ” to the free exercise of First
Amendment rights.”
The group libel ordinance, he ruled,
was overly broad, and the ordinance
banning militatry-style uniforms
infringed upon a person’s constitutional
right to wear one as a means of political
speech.
The U.S. Court of Appeals in May
affirmed Decker’s ruling and ordered
Skokie to issue a demonstration permit
to Collin. While Skokie officials sought a
stay of that ruling, they also agreed to
issue a permit to Collin for June 25.
On June 12, by a 7-2 decision, the U.S.
Supreme Court refused to grant a stay to
the Seventh Circuit Court ruling. Skokie
no longer had any chance to prevent the
rally.
IN THE END, Collin did not come to
the village. Having won his right to do so
and receiving continued threats of
violence by counter-demonstrators Collin stated that he had really been
wanting all along to march in Marquette
Park. Because of continuing problems
with the Chicago parks administration,
Collin ultimately appeared on the plaza
of the federal building in Chicago.
Counter-demonstrators greeted Collin
and his handful of supporters with eggs
and epithets. The neo-Nazis left, under
police guard, about 15 minutes after they
had arrived.
Having lost the legal battles, Skokie
officials still claimed the moral victory.
“Looking back on it, that view is
more right than wrong in the strictly
political sense,” Schwartz said. “The
village could claim a victory in that the
Nazis never marched here. The community united around a cause that we
thought was good and right.
“For many of the Holocaust survivors, I believe that many who had been
living with this horror bottled up for
more than 30 years experienced a
catharsis. In a sense, the survivors, in
their battle against the Nazis, were
paying a debt to their relatives and
friends who perished under the Third
Reich.”
GOLDBERGER SEES THE case
differently. While he said it was
“impossible not to view the profound
anguish of the survivors and feel for
them ” it is also impossible to remove
the issue from the First Amendment
context.
“What was always at issue here was
the identity of the speaker and the
anticipation of what he might say or
would want to say,” Goldberger said.
, “The whole set of reactions by the
Village of Skokie was anticipatory. And,
through all of the early court decisions
and the entire course of public debate,
everyone seemed to fall into the trap of
accepting the argumentt that the content
of this man’s beliefs was the issue. The
debate consistently ignored his right to
express those beliefs, however unpopular, or even repulsive, they might be.”
Schwartz argues that the specific
circumstances of the Skokie case makes
the case tougher to call.
“I know of no parallel case in
American history where the words and
symbols of a particular political philosophy came so close to the near equivalent
of physical assault,” Schwartz says. “In
this particular village, with these
particular survivors, it seemed clear
that these words, these symbols were
every bit as harmful as being beaten
with sticks and clubs.”
BY CONTRAST, GOLDBERGER
said he believes that “You can make
hypothetical arguments about restrictions on the First Amendment. But those
limits were never approached in
Skokie.”
For example, Goldberger said, there
was no question that Collin had the right
to appear at the village hall. “But
imagine if Collin had stated that he
would stand on a public sidewalk
immediately outside a synogogue on the
high holy days, where he would actively
excoriate the ‘captive audience’ of
worshipers. That’s only hypothetical, but
I think you have a much tougher call
there.”
In any event, Goldberger said, “I
think that city and other officials around
the country have learned a lot from the
(Skokie) case. A lot of officials, put in
the same position today, would realize
that if you get a march like this over in a
hurry, it’s history. And I think they
realize that the courts would rule against
efforts to try to prevent such marches.
“There is still the unforgiving attitude
toward (the ACLU’s) stand from some
segments of the Jewish community,”
Goldberger says. “I guess that's to be
expected.
“But I think we’re all better off for
having made the fight.”
�
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25609/archive/files/d573cf66a8f4e0b0b7cfd3a637f5fb1e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=JMwURlilC8uMuScRS5DlpF-4JtoxAd5kBpJtQnl6dzzgLvAa7mswdK-DkKjjX6kPz9OBIt1VvTKHZQrjfkNcOrtWFurQ4vv6eB7DkYRl-odwcveCg8M7QyDyS9zPpOFOhd%7E5r8Zg8yNQF3GWvfJSzxXt1u5TlYaOX6LwUyDfV9HxjaGSy6JF5x8FMgk2KSR5yRti2q0nLdgLyrSCyFceWRRt0df5fwd5LogV01Jks9GD1Cq7v-LI8VzmEW2vLEJKG0uIEUQmj9UcXjmSWfTeCvOXthiSdqwHv1SJmkV6h8SQ3CTa1FDRYn5K89IiA9fhwKyduNpnVH7f4v33CPyi1w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
dc40b0603ceab86cc02287cd747905a3
PDF Text
Text
.
Collin vs. S ok e
A classic case of protection of 'repulsive' beliefs
By Jim Szczepaniak
Any person is entitled to publicly
present his beliefs - even when that
person identifies himself as a Nazi and
even when his beliefs are represented by
the swastika. The U.S. Supreme Court
upheld that ruling almost 10 years ago in
the cast of Collin vs. Skokie.
effort to demonstrate
The
in Skokie, argued for more than a year
in state and federal courts, has been
characterized by some as a classic First
Amendment case. Others continue to
believe that Frank Collin's planned
demonstration on the steps of Skokie
Village Hall is a special case: that
mitigating circumstances clouded the
issue.
The uproar began in early 1977, when
Collin sent a letter to the Skokie Park
District asking for a permit to hold a
rally in one of the parks.
Park trustees responded by stating
that Coll would be required to post an
insurance bond of $350,000.
A SIMILAR TACTI C imposed by t e
Chicago Park District was temporarily
keeping Collin out of Marquette Park,
close to Collin's headquarters. The
American Civil Liberties Un on (ACLU),
representing Collin, had taken the
matter of the Chicago insurance
requirement to court, labeling it as an
unconstitutional restriction on Collin's
First Amendment right of assembly and
speech since the insurance was virtually
im ssible to obtain.
When Collin heard about the Skokie
Park District's requirements, he adopted
a new tactic : he sent a letter to the
Village of Skokie, announcing his
intention to demonstrate May l in
objection to the park d strict's tactics.
The demonstration was to be an
orderly one, accord ng to Collin. He and
a number of followers would stand on
the steps of the village hall, dressed in
uniforms. No speeches
their
would be given.
Collin's choice of location was perfect
for his purposes: Skokie, with a
, was
population of approximately 60,
recognized for having one of the largest
communities of Holocaust survivors in
the nation. Up to to percent of the
" The l bert es of any person
are the liberties of all of us.
The liberties of none are safe
unless the l bert es of all are
protected."
- Justice W ll am 0 . Douglas
population included survivors or immediate relatives, according to one estimate.
IN THE DAYS following Collin's
announcement, Skokie officials decided
that the best strategy would be to " keep
the lowest profile possible and minimize
the publicity," according to Harvey
Schwartz. Schwartz, now a Cook County
Circuit Court associate j udge; was
Skokie's corporation counsel at the time.
" We were operating on the general
premise that Collin had an almost
absolute right to hold the demonstration," Schwartz said.
Officials began to alter that approach
once news of Collin's demonstration
became public.
Skokie Mayor Albert Smith, Schwartz
and other officials held a public meeting
with some clergymen, representatives of
the Anti-Defamation League and residents. "Our goal was to allay people's
concerns and to present our position that
Collin's group had a First Amendment
right to rally," Schwartz said.
THAT POSITION WAS met with "an
absolute swarm of protest " from
survivors and other residents; people
were " highly agitated and emotional,"
Schwartz said. "You could tell that this
was now a major issue."
Media reports about "Nazi marches
through the village" began to appear on
the front pages of publications around
the country. Anti-Semitic literature
distributed in the community was
automatically attributed to Collin. And
Skokie trustees, responding to the
unanimous pressure from their constituents, decided to seek an injunction
against the demonstration in Cook
County Circuit Court.
On April 28, Judge Joseph Wosik
heard arguments from the village and
Collin. Among the five witnesses for the
village was Sol Goldstein, a prominent
leader in the survivor community.
Goldstein testified that he could not
promise that he could contain himself
from committing violence against the
Nazi demonstrators.
His testimony encapsulated the village's main argument for injunction:
while there was no contention that Collin
or his followers would engage in any
illegal activity, village officials argued,
angry residents certainly would. The
demonstrators' safety could not be
ensured.
DAVID GOLDBERGER. THE ACLU
auomey representing Collin, argued that
the coun could not prevent Collin's
constitutionally protected demonstration; the village had not attempted to
prove, much less proved beyond doubt,
that Collin would break the law.
Wosik issued an injunction barring
Collin and his party members from
parading in uniform in the village on
May I.
Collin's reaction was almost immediate: he would come to Skokie on April
the day prior to his originally
announced rally.
That Saturday morning, Skokie officials got an emergency hearing from
Circuit Court Judge Harold Sullivan, a
Skokie resident. Using the same argument submitted to Wosik, the officials
said the demonstration had to be
stopped. Sullivan agreed and expanded
Wosik's ruling, ordering that Collin and
his party be banned from appearing in
Skokie in uniform "until further notice of
the court."
EVEN WHILE SULLIVAN was
making his decisi on, hundreds of
community members and people who
had come from other parts of the
country were gathering on the village
green.
Schwartz said the gathering substantially altered the way he viewed the
case.
"As the crowd grew, they were
singing songs, talking with each other.
As the time got nearer for the planned
demonstration, there was an almost
unnatural intensity in the mood of the
crowd.
"You could literally see the crowd's
collective reaction as the news came
that the Nazis were on their way, then
the rumor that the judge had expanded
the injunction but that Collin wasn't
going to obey it," Schwartz said.
COLLIN DID OBEY Sullivan's order;
he turned back when Skokie police
intercepted his party at the Edens Expy.
and informed him about the ruling.
But back at the village green,
Schwartz said, " Holocaust survivors
were getting hysterical, literally hysterical. They were obviously reliving
sometbmg that led up to the Holcaust.
You could not logically reason with them
at the time, explaining that ttus was
some group of punks playing a game.
For them, (Collin's ppearance) was
nothing less than the Nazis coming bac
this time to get them for good.. "
The following week Skokie trus
passed three ordinances aime
preventing any future Collin appear
in the village. The first required that tht
village issue a permit for any parades or
demonstrations on public streets or
sidewalks. Applicants had to provide
in
days' written notice and post $350,
ance liability. Officials could waive
i
any of the requirements if they chose to.
The second ord nance made it illegal
to publicly display any "symbols
offensive to the community" and banned
parades by political party members in
"military style" uniforms. The third
banned the distribution of any literature
�containing "group libel," or literature
which sought to libel a collective group
of people based on religious or ethnic
beliefs.
THE THREE ORDINANCES were
all clearly aimed at preventing Collin
from coming to the village, in the
judgment of the ACLU. They had
something else in common, according to
Goldberger: they all constituted prior
restraint.
The ordinances were the only legal
avenue open to the village, Schwartz
said. "We were battling on all the issues
that we could raise," he said. "Now the
ACLU had to take us to court."
The ACLU did exactly that, maintaining that all three ordinances were
unconstitutional. The Illinois Appellate
Court in July, 1977, agreed in part. The
appellate court ruling stated that while
the Nazis had the right to assemble in
Skokie, the swastika could not be
displayed.
Upon appeal, the Illinois Supreme
Court decided the case in January, 1978,
stating that the demonstration could not
be prohibited. Nor could the display of
the swastika. "We do not doubt that the
sight of this symbol is abhorrent to the
Jewish citizens of Skokie," stated the
ruling, "and that the survivors of the
Nazi persecutions, tormented by their
recollections, may have strong feelings
regarding its display. Yet it is entirely
clear that this factor does not justify
enjoining defendants' speech."
IN A FEBRUARY, 1978, ruling,
Judge Bernard Decker of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois declared all three village
ordinances unconstitutional. Following a
similar ruling on the Chicago Par
District's insurance requirement, Decker stated that the first Skokie law
imposed " a virtually insuperable obstacle" to the free exercise of First
Amendment rights."
The group libel ordinance, he ruled,
was overly broad, and the ordinance
banning military-style uniforms
infringed upon a person's constitutional
right to wear one as a means of political
speech.
The U.S. Court of Appeals in May
affirmed Decker's ruling and ordered
Skokie to issue a demonstration permit
to Collin. While Skokie officials sought a
stay of that ruling, they also agreed to
issue a permit to Collin for June 25.
On June 12, by a 7-2 decision, the U.S.
Supreme Court refused to grant a stay to
the Seventh Circuit Court ruling. Skokie
no longer had any chance to prevent the
rally.
IN THE END, Collin did not come to
the village. Having won his right to do so
and receiving continued threats of
violence by counter-demonstrator s, Collin stated that he had really been
wanting all along to march in Marquette
Park. Because of continuing problems
with the Chicago parks administration,
Collin ultimately appeared on the pla
of the federal building in Chicago.
Counter-demonstrators greeted Collin
and his handful of supporters with eggs
and epithets. The neo-Nazis left, under
police guard, about 15 minutes after they
had arrived.
Having lost the legal battles, Skokie
officials still claimed the moral victory.
"Looking back on it, that view is
more right than wrong in the strictly
political sense," Schwartz said. "The
village co ld claim a victory in that the
Nazis never marched here. The community united around a cause that we
thought was good and right.
"For many of the Holocaust survivors, I believe that many who had been
living with this horror bottled up for
more than
years experienced a
catharsis. In a sense, the survivors, in
their battle against the Nazis, were
paying a debt to their relatives and
friends who perished under the Third
Reich."
GOLDBERGER SEES THE case
differently. While he said it was
" impossible not to view the profound
anguish of the survivors and feel for
them," it is also impossible to remove
the issue from the First Amendment
context.
"What was always at issue here was
the identity of the speaker and the
anticipation of what he might say or
would want to say," Goldberger said.
"The whole set of reactions by the
Village of Skokie was anticipatory. And.
through all of the early court decisions
and the entire course of public debate,
everyone seemed to fall into the trap of
accepting the argume1.t that the content
of this man's beliefs was the issue. The
debate consistently ignored his right to
express those beliefs, however unpopular, or even repulsive, they might be."
Schwartz argues that the specific
circumstances of the Skokie case makes
the case tougher to call.
" l know of no parallel case in
American history where the words and
symbols of a particular political philosophy came so close to the near equivalent
of physical assault," Schwartz says. "In
this particular village, with these
particular survivors. it seemed clear
that these words, these symbols were
every bit as harmful as being beaten
with sticks and clubs."
BY CONTRAST, GOLDBERGER
said be believes that " You can make
hypothetical arguments about restrictions on the First Amendment. But those
limits were never approached in
Skokie."
For example, Goldberger said, there
was no question that Collin had the right
to appear at the village hall. "But
imagine if Collin had stated that he
would stand on a public sidewalk
immediately outside a synogogue on the
high holy days, where he would actively
excoriate the 'captivP audience' of
worshipers. That's only hypothetical, but
I think you have a much tougher call
there."
In any event, Goldberger said, " l
think that city and other officials around
the country have learned a lot from the
(Skokie) case. A lot of officials, put in
the same position today, would realize
that if you get a march like this over in a
hurry, it's history. And I think they
realize that the courts would rule against
efforts to try to prevent such marches.
"There is still the unforgiving attitude
toward (the ACLU's) stand from some
segments of the Jewish community,"
Goldberger says. " I guess that's to be
expected.
" But I think we're all better off for
having made the fight. "
�One of the onlookers who gathered in Skokie reflected the almost hysterical mood of the crowd as police formed a phalanx to protect the imminent
appearance of the neo-Nazis. (Staff photo by Pat Cordell)
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Attempted Nazi March in Skokie, 1977 and 1978, Digital Collection
Description
An account of the resource
<p>During the late 1970s, a small group of neo-Nazis based in Chicago attempted to hold a rally in the Village of Skokie, Illinois, a community that was known to have a large Jewish population. Local officials resisted the group’s efforts through by passing a series of ordinances aimed at preventing demonstrations or parades by hate groups. The ordinances were ultimately overturned following a series of state and federal lawsuits because they infringed on the group’s First Amendment rights and the neo-Nazis were issued a permit to demonstrate in Skokie. However, instead of facing the growing number of organized counter-demonstrators, the group held rallies in Federal Plaza and in Marquette Park in Chicago. <br /><br />Visit <a title="Attempted Nazi March in Skokie" href="https://skokiehistory.omeka.net/exhibits/show/attempted-nazi-march/timeline">Skokie Public Library's online exhibit</a> to see the events as they unfolded. The library's digital collection, seen here, includes newspaper articles, editorials, recordings from the Skokie Village Board of Trustees meetings, a memoir written by a local clergywoman, and two documentary films.</p>
<p>For further information, you can find more resources in the library. If you have questions or comments send us an <a title="email Skokie Public Library" href="mailto:tellus@skokielibrary.info">email </a>or call us at 847-673-3733.</p>
Relation
A related resource
<h3><a title="Attempted Nazi March in Skokie" href="https://skokiehistory.omeka.net/exhibits/show/attempted-nazi-march/timeline">Attempted Nazi March in Skokie online exhibit</a></h3>
Subject
The topic of the resource
Skokie History
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Skokie Public Library
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Collin vs. Skokie : A classic case of protection of 'repulsive' beliefs
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Szczepaniak, Jim
Abstract
A summary of the resource.
Retrospective overview of the events and court cases resulting from Frank Collin, then leader of the local National Socialist Party of America (Nazis), requesting a permit to hold a rally in a Skokie park in 1977. Includes interviews with Harvey Schwartz and David Goldberger. Includes photograph of Justice William O. Douglas.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1987-09-17
Subject
The topic of the resource
American Civil Liberties Union
Demonstrations -- Illinois -- Skokie
National Socialist Party of America
Collin, Frank
Douglas, William O.
Goldberger, David
Schwartz, Harvey
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Skokie Review, Thursday, September 17, 1987, Supplement, CT6-7, Pioneer Press Newspapers, Glenview, IL
Rights Holder
A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource.
©Pioneer Press
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
In Copyright http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
csr870917a.pdf
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1970s (1970-1979)
1980s (1980-1989)
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Skokie Public Library, Reference Department
newspaper clippings