False equivalence.
Wanting to silence someone for espousing policies of genocide, ethnic cleansing or enslaving minorities is not the same as advocating these same policies.

Put another way: Shooting someone for trying to shoot you, (self defense) is not the same as trying to shoot them without provocation (murder)

Furthermore persecuting people for their ethnicity is utterly dissimilar to persecuting people for their actions or the policies they espouse. You can jail people for their threatening to hang someone. You cannot do so because of the color of their skin.

So stop trying to equate the two sides. They are not, nor ever will be, on the same moral ground.

That said, I agree they should be allowed to march, as long as the are subject to the same scrutiny that other marchers are. An armed force of marchers is not a peaceful protest. It's a threat.

Well, I guess that answers my question.

It apparently isn't.

Freedom of speech is protected, Inciting violence is not. (Brandenburg v. Ohio)

And the Nazi's are generally trying to incite violence.

I can just as easily say that BLM or Antifa is "generally trying to incite violence" and not be inaccurate. Frequently, they are. It doesn't become illegal until it's an advocacy of imminent lawless action.

“Before the attack occurred, we chased the Nazis out of their park, removing their platform.

That brings up a good point...

Where the **** were the police when this **** broke out?

And I can just as easily say "I would agree with your statement on BLM or Antifa"

Now I do have a question. I am discussing this with Mus, and I am looking to see if someone knows the legality of this:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-cha ... story.html


Is that Legally permitted since both the protesters and counter protesters had permits?

Aside from the fact that just having weapons isn't a threat (despite all the hand wringing over assault rifles at Tea Party rallies, no one was ever shot) so is an armed force of counter protestors.

If there's an armed group of protestors, there's police to deal with that. If you show up armed to counter protest, and violence breaks out, you're just as at fault.

A permit (and my understanding was that only the "Nazis" had permits, but lets assume both sides had them) doesn't make it legal to stop someone else from engaging in conduct they have a legal right to engage in.

The beliefs of either group are not material, and the characterization of one group by the other is even less so. You can't show up to counter-protest something, attack the other side, then when they retaliate claim it was all their fault for having a repugnant protest in the first place.

As I understand it:
The Nazi shit-stains has a permit to be in Freedom park, and the Counter-Protesters had a permit for Justice Park.

On another note, why is this guy driving a grey Dodge Challenger, instead of an orange Dodge Charger? It was, ostensibly, a protest with some connection to a statue of General Lee.

That would explain it then, since if the counter-protestors were chasing the "Nazis" out of Freedom Park, they were obviously there and not in the park they had a permit to be in.

Actually, yes it is.

The fact that you feel these are morally equivalent tells me everything I ever needed to know about you.

Legally they may be, but morally they are not. Luckily morals and the law are fairly divorced these days.

But in the end I Agree they legally and should have the right to protest. That does not make their message equally valid, just equally protected.

Keep digging DE.

It looks like the *cops* pushed the nazis out of the park from what I've seen.

The General Lee was a Challenger. The Charger is a 4 door.