This whole kneeling thing is getting out of hand

On the court case, it's not that the court ruled that the speech itself was free speech, but they held that the Ohio statute that was applied in the lower court's ruling was in violation of the 1st and 14th amendment.  From the summary site, it says "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The statute was overbroad in how it determined what is permissible and what is not and he was charged with violating that statute, not necessarily that he committed an act that went against the 1st amendment protections.  It's a key distinction.  That latter part of the statement is where the Charlottesville speech comes into play and I'll grant you that it's a gray area.  These are people wearing swastikas and KKK outfits, or brandishing KKK materials.  These are two organization that have committed seriously horrible crimes over the years.  If the city of Charlottesville were so inclined, they could have denied the organization's right to amass in this manner because this type of speech, as we have seen over time, is likely to incite tensions and the organizers would be hard pressed to successfully use the defense of free speech.  Some are surely going to say otherwise, but that's a reality.  The Nazis killed millions of people....for no reason.  The KKK has killed who knows how many people.....for no reason.  If you're walking around supporting these groups and chanting "Jews belong in the oven," sorry I cannot accept that as being protected and not just because I come from a jewish family.  Just think of the ideological background of why these groups exist.  

I also want make sure the distinction is clear.  You aren't arrested for "hate speech."  You're arrested for violating a city/town/county ordinance that says you can't amass for X purpose (just like I can't have a group picnic in the town park without getting a permit from the town).  But this relates to the instance of perceived hate speech, and not the issue of yelling fire in the theater.  If you are arrested, you could try to claim that the ordinance violates your first amendment rights (which is essentially what happened in that Brandenburg case).  I have a hard time believing that they would win that case in this instance, but since they weren't arrested, there's nothing to claim here on that front.  That's why no legal scholars are calling for their arrest.  That's not how it works.  Short of violence that was actually committed, there's nothing to arrest these people for.  

I'll grant you that it's an issue of subjectivity and can definitely be murky.  But that's why the Supreme Court has heard these cases.  If everything was cut and dried, these issues wouldn't really be issues.  That said, the test the court uses is what a reasonable person of sound mind would think (I forget the exact wording of what the test is; it's been 13 years since I took constitutional law).  Obviously, that is subjective, but are you suggesting that a reasonable person couldn't possibly be offended at the sight of thousands of tiki torch carrying white people brandishing swastikas and KKK outfits chanting about how blacks, jews and gays don't belong here or believe that violence could result from that? It's not that violence DOES occur, but whether a reasonable person could see how violence COULD occur.  To me, the fact that people are using free speech as the justification is, to me, the real heart of the problem we have here regardless of whether they are right or wrong.  

See, we all love free speech.  It's part of what makes this country great.  You feel one way and I feel another and we can have this discussion on reasonable terms because of that 1st amendment.  You are a smart guy as am I (at least, I like to think I am).  We are free to discuss our differences and try to make this country a better place.  Now, before some cherry picking dickhead (this is not directed at you by any means) on this thread tries to claim that I'm trying to limit free speech, that is literally the last thing I am saying.  THE LAST.  But if someone wants to hate black people because they're black, jews for being jews, gays for being gay, they have to remember that free speech and being a racist are not mutually exclusive.  Hating blacks solely because they're black (which is what the KKK does) IS racist.  The fact that hating black people is acceptable under the 1st Amendment is not a shield that protects someone from being racist.  So if people want to be free speech crusaders, go for it.  Nobody is stopping them, but don't be up in arms when people call them racist.  Own it.  It doesn't mean they should be arrested.  It doesn't mean they don't have the right to feel the way they feel.  

Moreover, and this is just my personal opinion, and again, I'm not calling for free speech abridgement in any way, shape or form, but fucking hell I wish we lived in a world where people didn't just arbitrarily hate other people for no fucking reason.  The KKK has committed atrocities in this country for centuries for no discernible reason whatsoever.  What benefit do they grant society?  So go ahead, let them have their rallies, I just wish they didn't exist.  And Nazis? We fought an entire world war over stopping them and they arbitrarily murdered MILLIONS of people.  Are these really the people we want to stand behind in an ideological fight over our 1st Amendment right? Sorry, these people don't make the world a better place.