Whether it’s Neo-Nazis marching in Skokie, Illinois, or the Westboro Baptist Church picketing military funerals with “God Hates Fags” signs, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly protected speech viewed as hateful, offensive or abhorrent by the majority of Americans.

Even if it is hateful, the Constitution protects William Bacchus’ right to display a hangman’s knot in his front window on Quilcene’s main street.

The legal precedent is clear: hate speech is protected by the First Amendment as free speech.

In Collin v. Smith (1978) the Supreme Court upheld the right of Nazis to march in predominantly Jewish Skokie, Illinois. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) the Supreme Court upheld the right of the Klu Klux Klan to preach hate against African-Americans and proclaim the superiority of the white race. And in Snyder v. Phelps (2011) the Supreme Court upheld the Westboro Baptist’s Church’s sidewalk protests at the funerals of U.S. service members.

As recently as 2017 in Matal v. Tam, Justice Alito wrote for the majority: “Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate’.”

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969) the Supreme Court upheld clothing, in this case armbands, as a form of free speech, opening the door for many more forms of symbolic speech.

Just as the burning of the U.S. flag is considered symbolic - and protected - speech, so is the display of a noose. Were the noose instead a Nazi flag, a gay pride flag, an American flag or a peace sign, it would not change the amount of protection it sees under the First Amendment. 

In crafting the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the framers were influenced by philosopher John Milton’s idea that the truth emerges from a “marketplace” of ideas. Milton thought that if all ideas and opinions are allowed to be expressed openly, then the best and boldest will naturally rise to the top. Yakima-reared Justice William O. Douglas worked the marketplace of ideas into his opinion in U.S. v. Rumely, a 1953 free speech case. That analogy to free market economics is now the basis for the Court’s consistent support for free speech.

The Supreme Court has ruled that any limit on speech is presumed to be unconstitutional. Only very specific forms of speech such as pornography or clear and immediate incitements to violence or criminal activity are not protected by the First Amendment, and the government faces an incredibly high bar to prove its case for prior restraint of speech. A noose hung on private property does not meet any of these standards.

If you don’t like this symbol, think not about what you can do to stop William Bacchus from speaking but instead what you can do to protect those in our community you believe are harmed by this speech. Use your voice, as hundreds already have on our Facebook page, to send a clear message about where you stand. Put a sign or symbol of your views in your window, stage a protest, hand out flyers, use your voice as he uses his. Your participation in free and open debate is the crux of this great American experiment and it strengthens the bonds and values in our community to discuss ideas openly and honestly.

Carmen Jaramillo

(Leader news intern Carmen Jaramillo is a fifth-year senior at Washington State University, pursuing a bachelor’s degree in journalism and political science. She grew up in East Jefferson County and graduated from Port Townsend High School in 2015. At WSU she has studied constitutional law, civil rights, civil liberties and media law.)

The Leader’s Editorials are the opinion of the Editorial Board: Publisher Lloyd Mullen; co-owner Louis Mullen; Editor Dean Miller and Leader readers who lobby The Leader. Each editorial is signed by the person who writes that editorial on behalf of the Editorial Board.