The brazen appearance of white supremacist groups in Nashville left the city grappling with how to confront hateful speech without violating First Amendment protections.
They first arrived at the beginning of July: dozens of masked white supremacists, shuffling out of U-Hauls, to march through Nashville carrying upside-down American flags.
A week later, members of a separate neo-Nazi group, waving giant black flags with red swastikas, paraded along the city’s famed strip of honky-tonks and celebrity-owned bars. The neo-Nazis poured into the historic Metro courthouse to disrupt a City Council meeting, harassed descendants of Holocaust survivors and yelled racist slurs at young Black children performing on a downtown street.
The appearance of white nationalists on the streets of a major American city laid bare the growing brazenness of the two groups, the Patriot Front and the Goyim Defense League. Their provocations enraged and alarmed civic leaders and residents in Nashville, causing the city to grapple with how to confront the groups without violating free speech protections.
So you are saying that yes, the law should be applied unequally.
As I said, Republicans agree with that position. You and they are just at odds with who the same laws should help and who the same laws should oppress.
Free speech for me and not for thee has been one of their modus operandi for a long time now.
I’m not arguing with you about this semantic bullshit. To be a NAZI is to declare your intent to commit a crime. NAZIism is a criminal conspiracy.
There is no “equal protection” issue here, unless you think criminals deserve to be protected.
Please show that your claim has a legal basis in U.S. law.
Because I can show you the basis for a right to protest. It’s right in the Constitution.
Did I even once mention US law? Did I say anything about prosecuting the NAZIs? Did I say anything – anything at all – about the government doing anything about them?
No. I said it is right and good to fuck them up.
Now quit being a goddamn apologist and deliberately trying to misrepresent my arguments.
Okay, well this is about who has the legal right to protest, so your argument is not relevant to the discussion.