It's not a problem. The benefit of free speech wins easily. The government shouldn't decide who gets to hold up signs. the reason that handful of people are nationally known is the media. Thousands of people are unfortunately in cults and cause far more damage to themselves and society.
Conservatives are in favor of making the United States for whites only. Of course, my statement is just as false as your statement, but I wanted to see if it was fun just posting something completely false since you seem to enjoy doing that. It turns out that it wasn't really fun at all. I guess I'll leave that up to you.
Not defending Nazism. I'm defending the US Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is protected speech unless it is likely to cause imminent harm.
Any authoritarian law you pass to target those you don't agree with will end up being used against those you agree with.....so keep that in mind when you are asking to take away the rights of others simply because you don't agree with them, some day people might not agree with you.
No, they're against normalizing terrorists and murderers the way you want to do of Nazis and the Klan.
The vote is so far roughly 70% to 30% in favor of allowing Nazi to march, even if it results in violence. Don't you proclaim this is a liberal site? How does that square with your statement now?
I see so being anti-white is disturbing the piece but being anti-color is within the law. Thanks for clarifying.
Are you saying that keep Nazis gathering who are trained in combat and seeking violent confrontation are not likely to cause implement harm? Sure sounds like you are defending their right to intimidate and strike fear into people.
The Constitution gives anyone the right to assemble and protest. The Nazis have a Constitutionally protected right to make themselves look like the dumb-asses they are.
The burden of evidence rests with the side who wants to restrict the rights of others. So you tell me -- how many Nazi marches have been held in the US, and how frequently have others been physically harmed as a direct result?
This is not correct. You need to re-read the constitution. It's a shame you talk about the constitution without knowing what it actually says. I like how you edit it to suit your agenda. The burden of proof has been established over a span of evidence from the 1800's to last week in Charlottesville. This is a group bent on violence and not peaceful assembly. They are arguably in the same grouping of Hamas and ISIS and you defend their rights yet do not care for the rights of people they are trying to stamp out.
Remembering the Nazis in Skokie http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/remembering-the-nazis-in_b_188739.html
Did they carry weapons with them when they marched??? In that specific example, it wasn likely they were going to incite and commit violence. It's different when the protestors who are marching are coming prepared for battle and carrying weapons and looking forward to the violence.
I don't know if they were planning to do so or not. In the end, the march was called off. I think banning weapons in such marches is a reasonable public safety measure. I said so in the thread about the Boston rally.
I agree but Virginia is an open carry state. In the Charlottesville rally, the Nazis came heavily armed, some with semi-automatic weapons. Does that fall into the category of free speech? They terrorized a synagogue with armed men outside: http://www.newsweek.com/charlottesv...tect-synagogue-nazis-so-it-hired-armed-651260
