Fighting words: In the famous case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect "fighting words -- those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." (315 U.S. 568, 572 [1942])
Note that the harm involved is physical harm caused by someone else who was provoked by the speaker whose speech is being suppressed. The fact that someone else flies into a rage and causes physical harm results in justifying suppression of speech by another person.
It is simply not a cut-and-dried issue.
Nazi march cancelled in Toledo
Toledo Blade--October 15, 2005
Toledo police canceled a planned Nazi rally through North Toledo today before it even started because of disturbances among protestors along the route. Police Chief Mike Navarre said about six arrests have been made, several vehicles — including a police car — have been damaged but no injuries have been reported.
Police used tear gas to control crowds where rocks were being thrown. Major disturbances among African-American protestors still were occurring in the area of Central Avenue and Mulberry Street as of the time....(excerpted)
So your position is the next time I hear some idiot like Jessie Jackson call a white man a racist, I should go berserker on a few local black churches.
If enough people do it, then no one can use the term racist. I get it.
Regardless of your fine distinctions, this rally had a permit. Anti white and anti law groups convened to oppose the rally. And the anti-whites rioted again. Yawn. As predictable as the sun coming up.
When those levies failed in NO, a few other internal psychological levies failed as well. Some of us are tired of making exceptions on a daily/hourly basis for anti-social, anti-human behaviour.
I'll let the events of the riot speak for themselves.