The question in the movie was whether or not the American Nazi Party should be allowed to march in Skokie. The argument against the march is that the symbolism of the swastika will bring back memories to the holocaust survivors and surely incite violence. This of course brings up the topic of first amendment rights and unconstitutionality.
             I believe that the Nazis should be able to march. The last speaker from the ACLU best summed it up when he said that freedom of speech can't be limited too only those whose views are accepted by the majority of the population. He also says that freedom is the concern of the oppressed. To me, these things mean if we stop the nazis from marching and displaying the hated swastika, what's to say we can't stop everyone we don't agree with from publicly speaking? An example of this would be a Christian in a position of power that stops Catholics from assembling to discuss their views. Prior restraint should not be an option when there is only a prospect of hostility. It's easy to see the view of the survivors, but this country is based upon many things that make it great. One of the main things is that we have the freedom to speak our belief and I personally don't think that should ever be changed. If heckler's vetoes like this were allowed, the marches of the great Martin Luther King would've been somehow stopped and blacks wouldn't have the rights they deserve. The case in Skokie was not a fight for the rights of the Nazis, but a fight for the constitution. It reminds American citizens that the rights of free speech, expression, and peaceful assembly are not without cost.
             ...