Agreed, insofar as there is no such thing as a group that has special protection, right? We're talking about an individual right, correct? And, by extension, groups of people have the right to get together and express a message in unison, do they not?Brian Peacock wrote:Huh?Forty Two wrote:Sure, and it protects individuals, not just groups. Nazis are a protected group, because a group of individuals have a right of free speech. Since when does the right of free speech only protect certain groups of people?Brian Peacock wrote:Nazis are not a protected group.
Freedom of speech is a right of protection from interference by state, not a right to say and do whatever you like.
You're trying gfar too hard to find fault there. Simply, there's no special protection for Nazi speech: Nazis are not a protected group.
When I typed "Nazis are a protected group" it was a way of putting that they are just as protected as any other group or individual. Everyone has an equal right in this regard, do they not?
Nobody said they were immunized against legal limits. However, they are not specially disfavored either. If a group of anti-segregationists were to march in Montgomery Alabama in 1960, that group of individuals had the same right as the Nazis to march, did they not? Not greater. Not lesser. Right? If the government prohibited the anti-segregationists from marching, because of the potential public order considerations (the public might get really pissed off and unruly about the darkies marching, for example), it would be a violation of their freedom of speech to prohibit their demonstration, but allow a demonstration of a group that is palatable to the community, correct?Brian Peacock wrote:Nazis are not a protected group, immunised against legal limits or impositions, public order considerations, or whatever.And, indeed, the right is protection from restraints on speech by the State, which is what this thread is about - the idea of the ACLU representing a Nazi party against a governmental entity that was restricting their right to free speech by prohibiting them from demonstrating on a public street.
Some individuals may think that. But, the principle in question is whether they have the same rights as anyone else.Brian Peacock wrote:No, I'm implying that Nazis think that their intolerant position should be protected and that other considerations shouldn't apply to them - because they're speshul.Are you suggesting that only certain groups, referred to as "protected groups," have a right not be interfered with by the government in that way? Nazis don't have that right? And, if so, where do you get that idea?
If these "other considerations" apply, such as "public order" and the state can silence the Nazis because of the reaction of other people to the message (a disorderly reaction) then would the government, in your view, also be justified in stopping an SJW march if the government surmised that disorder would result? A Black Lives Matter march? Do these "other considerations" in your view apply to marches, if, say, the city of Picayune, Mississippi concluded that there was a potential for disorder surrounding an atheist demonstration planned for Main Street, but the city of Picayune could allow a Christian church's demonstration down Main street because that one doesn't have much of a chance of inspiring disorder?