They are questions that Americans have pondered since even before the founding of our republic. In fact, they are questions that helped lead to the founding of that republic.
How much may government limit free speech? What constitutes speech? How far does my right to be a jerk extend if others feel threatened or intimidated by my actions?
That these questions would arise in La Center is not unique; they are issues that concern all Americans, in large part defining the very foundation of our nation.
The crux of the matter in La Center: The owner of a home on East Dogwood Avenue in the city of 3,800 residents has chosen to adorn his house in a fashion that many find offensive. As reported by The Columbian, there are “large hand-painted swastikas on the exterior of the house and a World War II Third Reich German flag flying above the home.”
That has drawn the ire of neighbors. During a city council meeting last month, one resident said: “We must make a choice about whether or not we will allow the city to be a safe haven for Nazis and Nazi sympathizers.”
Once, opposition to Nazis was pretty much unanimous in the United States. More than 400,000 Americans were killed defeating the monstrous philosophy of Nazi-led Germany during World War II.
But the hate-filled ideas of Adolf Hitler are enjoying a revival in this country. In February, the “Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community” warned that Nazis and other white supremacists “increasingly seek to sow social divisions, support fascist-style governments, and attack government institutions.”
Whether the owner of the home in La Center adheres to these beliefs is not clear; he did not respond to inquiries from The Columbian. But the presence of symbols evoking Nazi dogma bring up important questions about our communities.
“It wasn’t something we’d like to see in the community, but by the same token, we don’t have any legal authority to tell a homeowner what they can or can’t paint on the side of their house,” Mayor Pro Tem Elizabeth Cerveny said.
Regarding government action, city attorney E. Bronson Potter said: “The special protection for doing this on your own residence has to be recognized. The second thing is why are we doing this, why are we taking this action? It’s clearly content driven. It’s ‘We don’t like the message.’ … You’re just going to be setting yourself up for a civil lawsuit liability.”
While we are guessing the city would take action if somebody painted, say, sexually explicit images on a house, the right to spread unpopular messages in the United States is sacrosanct. So, too, is the right to ignore pushback against those messages.
If a member of the community wishes to publicly demonstrate that they are abhorrent, that is their right. Nature is filled with creatures that have features signaling, “do not touch.”
And if neighbors wish to publicly signal that they reject hateful messages, that is their right. Demonstrating that La Center is a welcoming community that opposes the philosophy of white supremacists is the duty of residents, not the local government.
Until hateful demagoguery devolves into specific threats or actions, Americans can be as repulsive as they like.
Of course, there are endless permutations to this argument. What if suddenly every house on the block raised Nazi flags? What if elected officials started repeating Russian propaganda?
These are questions Americans have struggled with for centuries. And they are part of trying to form a more perfect union.
