[betty boop]

He added that New York City engaged in viewpoint discrimination when it applied the law to the Klan but not to other groups in similar scenarios....

``No one disputes the fact that (the) plaintiff is a notorious racist organization, at least not this court,'' he wrote. ``The focus here, however, is on constitutional protections.''

I am very sorry, but IMHO there are absolutely no scenarios under which the federal judiciary is required to uphold and protect projects of organized hatred, designed to be acted upon.

The First Amendment does not protect perjury; it does not protect crying "Fire!" in a crowded building; it does not protect slander or defamation....

Therefore, certainly it cannot protect any person or group of people whose entire reason for being is to prosecute acts of hatred against other persons or groups of people.

Please note: I do not here argue for "hate speech" laws. What I DO argue for is basic, civilized standards of public custom and discourse.

People who wear hoods while perpetrating evil deeds hardly seem to fall within the zone of protection afforded by the Bill of Rights.

FWIW, IMHO.

[dead]

People who wear hoods while perpetrating evil deeds hardly seem to fall within the zone of protection afforded by the Bill of Rights.

Evil deeds, if illegal, are not protected.

So called "evil speech" is, lest we get into judging who's speech is evil.

Leftists believe that yelling "baby killer" at an abortion doctor is "evil speech" as was yelling "Get out of Cheney's house!" at Al and Tipper Gore.

Free speech applies to idiots as well as geniuses.

[Concentrate]

People who wear hoods while perpetrating evil deeds hardly seem to fall within the zone of protection afforded by the Bill of Rights.

Makes me think of completely veiled Islamic suicide bombers. Imagine the possibilities.