-    Collin (AKA “The Skokie Case”) (7th Cir., 1978):  This case
dealt with whether or not speech could be banned because it is
“offensive” to those who are exposed to it.  D, the Village of
Skokie, Illinois (a suburb of Chicago), had a very large Jewish
population, including several thousand survivors of the Nazi
holocaust.  In 1974, 40,500 of the Village’s 70,000 were Jewish.  P,
a member of the American Nazi Party, had planned on marching in
Skokie along with his fellow party comrades.  These Nazis believed
Jews have “inordinate…political and financial power” in the world and
are “in the forefront of the international Communist revolution.”  In
1977, the Village enacted three ordinances to prohibit demonstrations
such as the Nazi Party’s.  The first ordinance (ordinance “994”)
required that persons seeking to parade or assemble in the village
had to obtain liability insurance in the amount of a least $300,000
and property damage insurance in the amount of at least $50,000.  One
of the prerequisites for this permit was that the marchers would “not
portray criminality, depravity, or lack of virtue in, or incite
violence, hatred, abuse, or hostility toward a person or group of
persons by reason of reference to religious racial ethnic national or
regional affiliation.”  The second ordinance (“995”) prevented “the
dissemination of any materials within the Village…which is intended
to promote and incite hatred against persons by reason of their race,
national origin, or religion.”  Such materials include “publication
or display or distribution of posters, signs, handbills, or writings
and public display of markings and clothing of symbolic
significance.”  The third and final ordinance (“996”) prohibited
public demonstrations by members of political parties while wearing
“military-style” uniforms.  Violation of these ordinances was prison
and/or fines.  P applied for a permit from D, which it denied based
on above ordinances.  The permit application stated that the march
would last about half an hour, and would involve 30 to 50
demonstrators wearing uniforms, including swastikas, and carrying a
party banner with a swastika and placards with statements such as
“White Free Speech,” “Free Speech for the White Man,” and “Free
Speech for White America.”  The marchers would have a single-file
sidewalk march so traffic was not disrupted, and would not have
distributed any handbills or literature and would not have given any
speeches.  Does the First Am. protect P’s right to demonstrate with
his party in the Village?