‘Freedom’ is the best response to hatemongers

Let them march in Charlottesville. Let them speak. Hate-propagating neo-Nazis and bottomdwelling white supremacists — the dregs of our open society — have and should have First Amendment rights.

We need to see them for what they are: a disappointing collection of the disaffected; some parading around in silly costumes, often ignorant of the real meaning and history of the symbols they display, carrying torches meant as much to intimidate as to illuminate.

We need to hear them for what they say: advocacy of discredited ideas involving racial purity and intolerance, couched in misrepresentations of history and the American experience.

We need to understand them for what they are: betrayers of what President Lincoln called “our better angels,” of the principles of equality, justice and the rule of law.

Granted, it is tempting after events like those of last weekend to take another view. It’s tempting to believe that if only such domestic terrorists were silenced by government, their views would dissipate; that “out of sight” truly would mean “out of mind.”

But such censoring, suppressing and silencing is a betrayal of our core principles — along with being ineffective and often counterproductive.

The ACLU of Virginia is being vehemently attacked online for representing in court the white supremacist group that successfully challenged the Charlottesville government’s initial decision to ban the group from gathering in a centrally-located city park, in favor of a more isolated park about a mile away.

What other stand should the ACLU, which has been protecting the free speech rights of opposing groups for nearly a century, have taken?

The First Amendment protects us all from government actions based solely on our views or the content of our expression.

There is no national authority on what’s right or acceptable — no “national nanny” to rap knuckles over offensive, disgusting or repugnant views. U.S. District Judge Glen Conrad, in rejecting the government ban on the alt-right rally in Charlottesville, was not validating the views of those who gathered.

Rather, Conrad was upholding the nation’s commitment to free speech, and the view of the nation’s founders that over time and when left to freely discuss and consider all options, we would arrive at the best solution for the greatest number of people.

Over time, we have developed and been well-served by legal doctrines narrowly defining when officials can act to suppress speeches, rallies or marches; doctrines rooted in specific evidence of real, immediate threats to public safety.

From schools to sidewalks, those laws focus applying restrictions on conduct rather than suppressing the ideas behind those actions.

Let’s concede that this system is not neat and tidy, nor effective in all cases. It requires both great effort and great restraint on the part of police and elected officials charged with public safety.

In the wake of the tragedy in Charlottesville, we must remain committed to our core belief that we’re better off — and ultimately, more secure — when we may freely discuss, debate and decide.

For those who repudiate hate groups and the ugly messages they work to spread, let’s keep in mind another adage of the First Amendment community: “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”