AGAINST "FREEDOM" OF FASCISTIC RACIST SPEECH AND ORGANIZATION by John Henry and Tanika Warren Legal protection of fascistic racist speech and organization is most obviously a threat, a clear and present danger to African Americans and other target oppressed nationalities and groups; it is also a direct, clear and present danger to progressives. However, some argue that freedom for oppressed groups and progressives depends upon permitting fascistic racist "freedom". We might divide these arguments into the "philosophical " and the "pragmatic". "Pragmatic" arguments "Pragmatic" arguments are basically of the form: the freedom of speech and assembly of oppressed and progressive groups Amendis ta coots interpret upon Constitutionautar as protecting the "unpopular". If unpopular fascistic racist "freedom" is not protected, then oppressed and progressive group freedom will not be protected. Are we removing our own protection by opposing "freedom" of fascistic racist speech and assembly ? No. "Freedom" of fascistic racist speech and assembly has not in fact and at law consistently protected freedom of oppressed and progressive group speech and assembly. The Supreme Court did not decide a case on freedom of speech until 1919. Thus, for example the Abolitionist movement did not rely on the Court to protect its freedom of speech. Even in the first Supreme Court free speech and assembly decisions, the First Amendment was not used consistently to protect progressives. In Schenck , Abrams and Debs' the Court sent to jail peace activists and trade unionists, who opposed U.S. involvement in World War I (These activists opposed the war because it was a capitalist, imperialist war not in the interest of the working class). Despite the fact that in this period Justices Holmes and Brandeis began to develop the modern doctrine whither teet olitical speeche stilln sta ists and convictions were upheld of socialists and communists who spoke out. In Whitney Brandeis wrote a paean to free speech and then voted to jail a member of the Communist Labor Party, one of the founding parties of the Communist Party USA. Of course, earlier, Holmes and Brandeis' jurisprudential revolution was not in time to prevent the infamous Palmer Raids3<


The end of the 1940's brought McCarthyism and the Smith Act. again in this period, Dennis between advocacy of abstract doctrine and advocacy of action so as to reach a different result than in Dennis solely on failure to give jury instructions is very flimsy and metaphysical. Of course, the result in Yates, overturning a conviction is important to those released from jail, but how can Marxists, who place a premium on the unity of rely for their Protectiod or at absolute distaction de tween abstract doetrine and action ? On the other hand, throughout the period discussed above, In two landmark cases, the Supreme court protected fascistic racist speech. This history gives very little support for the notion that protection of fascistic racist speech translates by U.S. jurisprudential logic into protection of communists and progressives. If one looks beyond the rhetoric and word formulas in the judges' opinions, the communists and progressives go to jail and the fascistic racists are freed or never arrested in the first place. There is also from the tactical standpoint, the more direct threat. Aside from the role of courts in protecting or not protecting oppressed/progressive group freedom, the allowance of the secaste terend ns their deset targets. uppressed and the existence and growth of progressive groups. This every week results in bigotted violent incidents in our country. Specifically, with respect to oppressed groups who are the main targets of fascistic racist organizations, it should be clear that obtaining court protection for freedom of speech and assembly would not be worth it if that "protection" is gotten in exchange for allowing fascistic racist organizations to exist; allowing the direct physical threat and racists gangs would not be worth the trade off of obtaining court protection for freedom of speech and assembly, even if the protection could not be had without the allowance of the existence of the threat ( actually this direct threat from fascists also exists for progressives, especially communists). Furthermore, there is not an extensive court accepted jurisprudence on the First Amendment rights of oppressed national groups. Except for Jim Crow governments and laws, which are now outlawed, there is little legal dispute that civil rights organizations have the right to exist, contrary to the legal and factual status of progressive, especially communist<


•