After Saturday’s white supremacist riots and violence against counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, community members in the city and people nationwide are still reeling. Reported Nazi sympathizer James Alex Fields, Jr., plowed his gray Dodge Challenger through a group of counter-protesters, killing 32-year-old legal assistant Heather Heyer and injuring at least 19 others. Fields has been charged with second-degree murder, three counts of malicious wounding, and one count of hit and run.

Fields’ attack was only one piece of the violence on Saturday. White supremacists, neo-Nazis, and neo-Confederates beat counter-protesters and marched through the streets of Charlottesville with Nazi flags, white supremacist images, and anti-Semitic chants. Following the weekend’s attacks, people are passing around the blame for the white supremacists’ acts of terror in Charlottesville.

In an interview with NPR’s David Green, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe explained that the city of Charlottesville had tried to relocate the rally to a more open park about a mile and half away from Emancipation Park, outside of downtown Charlottesville. However, the ACLU of Virginia joined a lawsuit against Charlottesville after the city refused to allow “Unite The Right” organizer Jason Kessler and his supporters to access Emancipation Park on Saturday for the previously approved demonstration.

“That rally should not have been in the middle of downtown – to disperse all those people from the park where they dispersed all over the city streets,” McAuliffe told NPR. “And it became a powder keg. And we got to look at these permits, and we got to look at where we put these rallies and protesters. I got to protect public safety.”

The ACLU of Virginia’s Executive Director Claire G. Gastanaga fired back at McAuliffe on Monday, condemning the violence that took place in Charlottesville but defending her organization’s involvement in the lawsuit against the city.

“We asked the city to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and ensure people’s safety at the protest,” Gastanaga said. “It failed to do so. In our system, the city makes the rules and the courts enforce them. Our role is to ensure that the system works the same for everyone.”

She said the city had failed to present sufficient evidence to the judge that moving the location of the rally would in fact result in no demonstration in downtown Charlottesville, instead of creating a situation in which the city would have to deal with two demonstrations in two separate locations.

“But let’s be clear: our lawsuit challenging the city to act constitutionally did not cause violence nor did it in any way address the question whether demonstrators could carry sticks or other weapons at the events,” Gastanaga said.

Over the years, the ACLU has taken somewhat of an absolutist stance on First Amendment rights, even defending speech that it hates. The organization was recently criticized by one of its own attorneys after the ACLU decided to defend Milo Yiannopoulos, a writer and speaker who is infamous for espousing hate against people of color, Muslims, immigrants, transgender people, and other marginalized individuals.

The events in Charlottesville and the ACLU’s defense of the constitutional rights of white supremacists, Nazis, and other hate-mongers raises an important question: what happens when the First Amendment–or any constitutional right for that matter–is used to protect hate and oppress other people?

In United States v. Schwimmer (1929), a pacifist applicant for naturalization was denied U.S. citizenship because she expressed that she “would not take up arms personally” in defense of the country. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes asserted that the Constitution protects thoughts that we may not agree with.

“Some of her answers might excite popular prejudice, but if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought–not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate,” Holmes wrote.

That idea has been applied in other cases over the years and has evolved to include hate speech as part of protected speech. The Supreme Court upheld that principle in June when it reaffirmed that hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. Matal v. Tam dealt with the right of Asian American musician Simon Tam and his band “The Slants” to trademark their band name. The band’s trademark application was originally denied because of the band’s inclusion of a racial slur used to refer to Asians in their name.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the government’s restriction of “speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. 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.'”

Of course, there are exceptions to that rule as well. The “fighting words” doctrine, which arose out of the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) decision, has been used to curtail speech used to incite violence. According to Chaplinsky, fighting words are “words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitutes a breach of the peace by the speaker — including ‘classical fighting words,’ words in current use less ‘classical’ but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats.”

So where does the legality of the language used in Charlottesville fall on the protected/unprotected speech spectrum? Well, it can be a bit tricky. During the Charlottesville riots, white supremacists and neo-Nazis chanted anti-Semitic phrases like “Blood and soil,” which is derived from language that was used in Nazi Germany. However, if those chants were not spoken directly to a specific person, precedent may deem them to be hate speech but not fighting words. In other instances, rioters targeted specific individuals with racial and homophobic language. In those cases where particular individuals were singled out, a court might find that the aggressor was using fighting words.

Under current legal precedents, restrictions on free speech are not the clearest. What is clear is that hate groups are able to use discriminatory language that instills fear in marginalized communities without necessarily experiencing repercussions for that speech.

But it is also important, and perhaps more effective, to call out hate speech within our own communities. Eliminating hate speech is an important step in combating racism and other forms of hate, but people must also be willing to confront the beliefs and behavior that language is rooted in. Organizations like the subscription-based service Safety Pin Box provide substantive ways that allies can actively show their support for marginalized people, beyond mere social media posts “in solidarity.” People can also donate to anti-racism organizations and call their local, state, and national representatives in regard to specific issues. The events in Charlottesville are an overt demonstration of white supremacy, but they are only symptomatic of more systematic white supremacist structures. In order to combat white supremacy and other forms of hate, people must first address oppressive language and behavior in their own lives among family, friends, co-workers, and other community members.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Happens When the First Amendment Is Used to Protect Hate? appeared first on Law Street.

During a vacation to Berlin, a pair of Chinese tourists stopped at the historic Reichstag building and took photos performing the infamous Nazi salute. The duo were promptly detained by the German police on the scene and held on a bail of 500 euros for violating a German law aimed at distancing the nation from its horrific mid-20th-century history.

Police guarding the building, which now houses part of the German Parliament, noticed the tourists taking turns posing and snapping pictures and promptly intervened, according to their statement. The pair, a 36-year-old and a 49-year-old participating in a European tour, were allowed to return to China with their group even though their crime could carry a three-year sentence, according to the Washington Post.

The Reichstag is a particularly sensitive location because of its role in the Nazi rise to power. When the Reichstag caught fire in 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party blamed the fire on Dutch Communists and used it as leverage to access more power. In 2011 a Canadian tourist was also arrested and fined for performing the salute in front of the building, according to the Washington Post.

The incident is yet another example of Germany, and other European nations, criminalizing and condemning Nazi history and its recent resurgence. In this case, the tourists violated provisions of the German criminal code instituted after World War II that ban the salute and many other Nazi symbols, signals, and materials.

Since the war ended, Germany has made strides to distance itself from its history and to educate the new generations on the mistakes made by previous generations. The German public school system has a comprehensive education program on the Holocaust that has only gained momentum in the past few decades, according to PBS.

Nazi flags and symbols are banned across nearly every major country in Europe including Austria, Hitler’s home nation. Earlier this month the Switzerland Supreme Court upheld a conviction of a man performing the salute and yelling “Heil Hitler” outside of a Jewish synagogue in Geneva, according to the New York Times.

Not only is Europe cracking down on the distasteful behavior, but the Chinese government is worried as well. The government is testing out new systems to persuade its people to respect local laws and customs when traveling abroad. One new system would keep track of troublesome tourists and rank them based on severity of their behavior while reminding them to behave properly when they land, according to the Washington Post.

So while the behavior may not surprise the Chinese government, it is certainly frustrating for European nations, and particularly Germany, to constantly deal with tourists making ill-advised Nazi references. As the world sees a resurgence in white nationalism and racial strife these instances are part of a larger global problem that likely has no end in sight. Countries across the globe must tackle issues of discrimination, racism, and their individual histories that are often filled with those same problems.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chinese Tourists Arrested Over Nazi Salute at Reichstag appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Milo Yiannopoulos Dropped from CPAC After Pedophilia Comments

Alt-right journalist Milo Yiannopoulos was supposed to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference this week, but now CPAC has rescinded the invite after a video surfaced of him speaking favorably about relationships between “younger boys and older men.” CPAC originally had to defend its decision to invite Yiannopoulos to speak, citing freedom of expression, but when the latest controversy hit, the internet reacted fiercely. Yiannopoulos also lost his book deal with publishing company Simon & Schuster, which was supposed to publish his book “Dangerous.”

#BREAKING: Milo Yiannopoulos disinvited from CPAC after pedophilia remarks emerge https://t.co/i2bFLTcTh3 pic.twitter.com/Jwqw4Q0pOK

— The Hill (@thehill) February 20, 2017

Yiannopoulos apologized in a Facebook statement yesterday afternoon, saying that his comments were misinterpreted and that he is “horrified by pedophilia.” “I am a gay man, and a child abuse victim,” he wrote. “My own experiences as a victim led me to believe I could say anything I wanted to on this subject, no matter how outrageous.” However, many people seem to have had enough of Milo altogether.

#MiloYiannopoulos was never a conservative. He is just a gay guy who enjoys the publicity that comes from being controversial.

— LZ Granderson (@Locs_n_Laughs) February 21, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 21, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Today is Jared Kushner’s birthday, and apparently he got quite the gift from his father-in-law! Read our rants of the day to find out exactly what that was, and have a great Tuesday! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Names His Son-In-Law as an Adviser

Yesterday, President-elect Donald Trump’s aides said that he would make his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a White House adviser. Trump himself didn’t confirm this news explicitly, but told reporters who asked him, “We’ll talk about that on Wednesday,” when he is scheduled to hold a news conference. “The president has the right to appoint who he wants if you look at the law,” said Kellyanne Conway.

Best News of the Day. Trump Son-in-Law Jared Kushner to Be Named Senior White House Adviser https://t.co/GGmpeUq2oA

— Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) January 9, 2017

Kushner is only 36 years old, and has been married to Ivanka Trump since 2009. This move could create some conflicts of interest, as Kushner is a media mogul and real estate developer. He also has no experience in foreign policy. It’s not entirely clear what exactly the law says about the situation, as it is formulated vaguely, but it is sure to be analyzed closely in the coming weeks. And there have already been a lot of strong reactions:

Jared Kushner, a moron, has been hired to explain things to Donald Trump, who is even dumber in a game of telephone that ends in apocalypse.

— Matt Christman (@cushbomb) January 9, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 10, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

I was heartbroken last month to hear that Jon Stewart would be leaving his seat on “The Daily Show” for presumably bigger and better things after an impressive 16 plus years as the show’s host. Even though I was so sure that my girl Jessica Williams was primed to take Stewart’s spot, I was both impressed and excited when Comedy Central announced yesterday that South African comedian Trevor Noah had been awarded the coveted position. The world appeared to be geared up to embrace Noah and his international spin on politics, until fans of the show began to comb through his Twitter account and found some old tweets that have been deemed offensive to both women and Jews.

.@Trevornoah, new ‘Daily Show’ host, faces criticism for tweets http://t.co/K7QeoYNGQz pic.twitter.com/CWa34wcgI2

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) March 31, 2015

Some of the tweets in question include:

South Africans know how to recycle like israel knows how to be peaceful. — Trevor Noah (@Trevornoah) June 2, 2010

So she gets fat? RT @missdanibagel: When a woman is loved correctly, she becomes 10 times the woman she was before

— Trevor Noah (@Trevornoah) July 18, 2014

Almost bumped a Jewish kid crossing the road. He didn’t look b4 crossing but I still would hav felt so bad in my german car! — Trevor Noah (@Trevornoah) September 18, 2009

This one is a gem.

A hot white woman with ass is like a unicorn. Even if you do see one, you’ll probably never get to ride it.

— Trevor Noah (@Trevornoah) November 28, 2011

His comments have been called both anti-semitic and anti-feminist, but we need to take a second to remember one thing–Trevor Noah is a comedian. He’s not a politician, school principal, or “real” news correspondent. He makes a living telling jokes and making people laugh, and while humor is in fact subjective, these tweets appear to have been intended as jokes.

He’s not the first comedian to have his social media taken out of context, and he won’t be the last. As a top source for televised comedy, Comedy Central likely understands this and doesn’t seem to be putting too much stock in the controversy. I doubt Noah will lose his new position over this, but how he handles the situation will be telling.

Noah seemingly acknowledged the controversy Tuesday, sending out a tweet just before 9 a.m. Eastern time that read, “Twitter does not have enough characters to respond to all the characters on Twitter.” The tweet was deleted shortly after. Maybe he’s already learned his first social media lesson, at the very least: don’t fuel the Twitter trolls.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trevor Noah: First and Foremost a Comedian appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, Parisian fashion house Maison Martin Margiela announced that industry pariah John Galliano would take over as its new creative director. The former creative director of Dior has been attempting to make a comeback since he was caught on film going on an anti-Semitic rant back in 2011. Subsequently, Galliano was dismissed from his positions at both Dior and his own namesake line. But now that he’s back in the couture game, everyone can’t help but ask the age-old question: is it possible to separate art from the artist?

One of the most ubiquitous examples of a controversial man behind beautiful works is Woody Allen. There’s no arguing the classic status of Allen’s films but — especially recently when Dylan Farrow finally spoke out about her estranged father molesting her — people sometimes have trouble appreciating them knowing that a man with a weird fetish for underaged girls is the brain behind the masterpiece. That said, will the industry be able to forget, but maybe not necessarily forgive, Galliano’s transgressions come next couture season?

Galliano is hardly the only controversial figure in the industry. Fellow couturier Karl Lagerfeld is notorious for his sexist actions from his recent faux-feminist show to comments he’s made about women’s bodies like the singer Adele. But not everyone can get away with such aloof behavior. Activewear brand Lululemon’s CEO Chip Wilson resigned shortly after coming under fire for a comment he made about some women being too fat to properly fit into his leggings, and let’s not forget about American Apparel founder Dov Charney finally getting his just deserts for sexually harassing employees.

However, in the case of Galliano and Lagerfeld, as unacceptable as their behavior is they never physically hurt anyone like alleged sexual offenders Dov Charney and Woody Allen. So there aren’t necessarily any laws against such bigoted actions.

Ultimately, artistic minds like Galliano’s and Lagerfeld’s are very different from the average person’s in that they may not always be aware of the social ramifications of their actions. I’m not trying to excuse their behavior by any means. But whenever I hear Lagerfeld say ridiculous things about women I can’t help but roll my eyes and chuckle a little, because I know he has absolutely no perception of the real world. Galliano also allegedly blamed his abuse of alcoholism and drug abuse (which definitely fueled his inappropriate rants) on the pressures of running two couture houses. These artists tend to live in their own bubbles, only interacting with a select few people who let them get away with their odd behavior, because they are the genius masterminds who pay their paychecks. Quirky artists have the potential to offer so much joy in our lives, but sometimes you may have to look past their odd behavior and just appreciate their work for what it is.

Since getting the boot from the industry, Galliano has attempted to make his way back in. He tried a residency at Oscar de la Renta and a guest professorship at Parsons the New School for Design, but all have fallen through because the public was still not ready to forgive him. So is the industry ready for Galliano to return to the couture scene? Only time will tell.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the Fashion Industry Ready to Forgive Anti-Semite John Galliano? appeared first on Law Street.