Conviction of Anti-semite Upheld by Illinois Supreme Court; Rabble-rousers Warned

Rabble-rousers hiding behind constitutional liberties they seek to destroy, received a “stay out of Illinois” notice today when lie State Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Arthur W. Terminiello.The opinion sustained the Appellate Court in upholding a Chicago Municipal Court Jury’s conviction of Terminiello for disorderly conduct in connection with an anti-Semitic meeting held in Chicago more than two years ago.

The verdict marks a victory for the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee as well as the Law Department of the City of Chicago, which secured the conviction and its affirmation by the Appellate Court. The case was initiated under Counsel Barnet Hades, who resigned a year ago to enter private practice. Among the principal defense witnesses was Elizabeth Dilling, author of the notorious “Red Network.”

Advertised as the “Father Coughlin of the South,” Terminiello addressed a meeting in Chicago on Feb. 7, 1946, under auspices of the Christian Veterans of America, Invitations signed by Gerald L.K. Smith brought more than 1,000 sympathizers and an equal number of opponents. Despite the presence of 70 policemen, clothing was torn, missiles thrown, windows smashed and stench bombs exploded. Inside the shell, according to witnesses, Terminiello exhorted his “fellow Christians” to fight “non-Christiana” and to oppose every attempt” to shed American blood to promote Zionism in America.”

In appealing from a municipal court fine of $200, Terminiello pleaded that his utterances did not create or tend to create a breach of the peace, and that his speech was protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that Terminiello’s utterances resulted in actual breaches of the peace both inside the auditorium and outside, while his conduct provoked violence and, therefore, amounted to a diversion tending to a breach of the peace.

Citing a U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Court quoted as follows: “No would have the hardihood to suggest that the principle of freedom of speech sanctions incitement to riot or that religious liberty connotes the privilege to exhort others to physical attack upon those belonging to another sect.”