On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 16:07:29 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/22/17 3:17 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:26:42 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

cIntire Park rather than Emancipation Park. The applicant
chose to file a lawsuit to go to Emancipation instead. The judge issued
an injunction late Friday ordering the City to allow the event to take
place in Emancipation Park. This quick turnaround, and the court order,
meant that a formal permit for the event was not issued. The City did
comply with the court’s direction.

The counter-protestors did have permits, but for a different space.

Then they didn't have a permit to be where they were. The court gave
the nazis their permit.
I know you don't like courts when they disagree with you tho.
In fact it was your buddies, the anti war protestors who gave the
nazis the right to march. When the draft protestors went to court to
overturn SCHENCK v. U.S. it became legal to "cry fire in a crowded
theater" and to use language that might present "a clear and present
danger" (both phrases coming from Oliver Wendell Holmes in the Schenck
decision).
As long as the message is wrapped in a political context, you can
march and say any "****ing" thing you want
("****" being protected speech too, coming from another decision
about war/draft protestors)
Rockwell used those decisions to fight for his Skokie march and I
assume came up in the Charlottesville case.
You really have to be careful what you wish for when you pursue
unpopular free speech suits.


I'm aware of the legalities for these marches, but I don't have to agree
with granting permits to actual hate groups with a long history of
violence and whose marchers openly carry firearms, wear masks, and
obviously are itching for a fight. Obviously, it is difficult to draw a
line, but there shouldn't be any doubt about the Klan or the NAZIs.

That applies equally to BLM and antifa. Unfortunately they all have
more rights than a sane person would give them. Thanks 60s guys.