While it cannot take legal action against it, the Whitpain Board of Supervisors condemned the choice.
Every American enjoys freedoms of our country that are not shared across the globe. It is sometimes those same luxuries that are abused or stretched to the limits of the law. And in Whitpain Township, the leadership opted to use their own avenues of speech to express its disgust with a recent demonstration.
According to a statement from the Whitpain Township Board of Supervisors on Tuesday night, there is a display of a Nazi flag within the township’s borders. And, while the supervisors may not have a legal method of ending this sickening display as it is that individual’s First Amendment right to hang it, the board can share the thoughts of the supervisors loud and clear.
The statement was as follows:
“The Whitpain Township Board of Supervisors has been made aware of the recent display of a Nazi flag in the Township. Both collectively and as individuals, we find this demonstration abhorrent, shocking, and offensive. There is no excuse nor any explanation for flying this flag. Full stop. That flag was and remains contrary to all that we believe in and all that our Township represents.”
Unfortunately, as there are laws defending the rights of all, there is no legal approach the board may take to remove the symbol.
“Now, as established by the Supreme Court of the United States, we recognize this display is protected free speech under the First Amendment,” continued the board’s statement. “Accordingly, while Whitpain Township is prohibited from and will not be taking any action toward the display, as individuals who live here, we condemn it in the strongest possible terms. We will not be silent in the face of evil. We trust our community will join us.”
When similar displays of hate were previously reviewed by the Supreme Court, the courts ruled in a landmark case, National Socialist Party of America vs. Skokie, Illinois, a court ruling allowed for neo-Nazis and sympathizers of the Nazi cause to demonstrate, determining that the actions were the party’s first amendment right.
The summary of the case noted the highest courts in the country upheld the right of the party as “the injunction will deprive them of First Amendment rights.”