By Kurt Nesbitt
Post-Bulletin, Austin MN 

Austin Mayor Tom Stiehm's comments in response to the Oct. 17 rally at the city veterans memorial have drawn mixed reactions from city council members, the American Civil Liberties Union and the leader of the local unit of the National Socialist Movement.

Stiehm said in a letter to the editor of the Austin Post-Bulletin that he plans to ask city officials to review the city's legal options for curtailing or directing protests to other public sites and would like the Austin City Council to discuss the matter at the next council work session.

Charles Samuelson, president of the Minnesota chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said, when asked if he had any concerns, that any such ordinance must be narrowly tailored and can put tight times, places and manners in which demonstrations can be made and have to be viewpoint-neutral. He said such laws affect fundamental freedoms and that the ACLU would take action should a complaint be made. He said the ACLU's client is the First Amendment and not necessarily individual groups.

"We really do not like representing Nazis," he said. "We prefer not to do it."

Precedents exist

There is some historical precedent to the issue in Minnesota. According to Samuelson, the ACLU sued the city of Brainerd for denying an American Indian group the right to march in a city-sponsored Fourth of July parade.

"That doesn't happen so much anymore," Samuelson said.

The classic case came in Skokie, Ill., in 1984, when the ACLU defended a Nazi group that won the right to march through the predominantly Jewish suburb of Chicago after the court battle was resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. According to Samuelson, the group wanted to march through Skokie specifically because it had such a high proportion of Jews -- specifically Holocaust survivors -- living there at that time.

So far, so good

Samuelson said the ACLU hasn't heard any complaints about Austin. He said the ACLU only acts on complaints that involve the government violating citizens' rights to free speech. Most of them get handled at the local level.

"So far, I don't see a problem (in Austin)," Samuelson said.

He said he thinks local veterans are right about "the dishonor" but stressed that any ordinance can't be based on a viewpoint objection.

"The government can't regulate the group based on what it says unless it is advocating overthrowing the government in a credible way or is threatening an individual," he said.

"I have a feeling, in the cockles of my heart, that good sense will break out," Samuelson said.

When asked for his thoughts on the mayor's idea, local National Socialist Movement leader Sam Johnson replied that Stiehm is trying to violate his constitutional rights.

"It's unconstitutional. If he goes ahead with it, he's in for a tough legal battle," Johnson said.

Johnson said he spoke with Norm Hecimovich, an outspoken veteran, and said the National Socialist Movement was not trying to disrespect veterans by holding its rally at the Veterans Memorial. He said his organization is planning to hold an event Nov. 11 to honor them.

Opinions among the members of the Austin City Council are somewhat mixed.

Council member at-large Janet Anderson said she thinks the city should explore the idea of keeping demonstrations away from the Veterans Memorial but not to restrict free expression. She thinks rallies like the one on Oct. 17 are best held elsewhere.

Council member Dick Pacholl said he doesn't want to stop public meetings, but he thinks the city could -- and should -- explore a permitting process so rallies can be handled in the same manner as parades.

There are 0 comments - Display All Comments