Free speech can't be limited because it's repulsive. It must be allowed. Political dissent of all types is at stake. Once we begin to bar speech because of how we feel about it, there is no end to the number of minority views that can be banned based on an emotional response.

Incitement to riot is not free speech. We shall see in the course of the investigation if the neo-Nazis crossed that line when they marched in Toldeo, by examining the things they said.

If repulsive political speech is banned, it will continue as criminal activity, concealed and more poisonous. Indeed, things that are banned have a certain cachet, a kind of heroism associated with them that attracts people as to a heroic cause, especially if they can't see it practiced in the open. If repulsive political speech is brought out in public, the people (in whom I have great faith, ultimately) will have the opportunity to see it with all its feathers on, for the chicken-brained stuff that it is, debate it, and reject it knowingly rather than harbor it in secret.

Sunshine is the best bleach for brain mildew like this.

Had the community relations with the police in LaGrange been better, my guess is there would have been no riots, but if things had been better, the neo-Nazis would never have seen their opportunity to sew violence in the first place.

Re: the Confederate flag: It's still allowed. It isn't banned. It's opposed as part of official state functions because of its affiliation with slavery, an offensive and illegal practice that a state, in respect for its non-white citizens, ought not to honor. (Just as the neo-Nazi march was not sponsored by the City of Toledo, but merely tolerated by it.) Private citizens can still express themselves by use of the Stars 'n' Bars, though as Roy Blout points out, why anyone would want to celebrate slavery and failed independence is beyond me. Maybe people like it because, as a fellow on NPR said last week, "It's not hate. It's heritage." I guess I can understand that.