Taking a stand against Nazism by acting like a Nazi isn't taking a stand against Nazism at all. Americans, even ones convinced of the righteousness of their cause, have no right to pitch rocks at ambulances, loot barrooms, or attack police. Americans, even jerks, have the right to speak and assemble. But where did this unlimited right to speech come from? The Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." It doesn't say that the city council of Toledo can't prohibit Nazis from marching in a city park.

Since the city of Toledo couldn't stop the Nazis (the mayor did inanely declare a "Day of Peace," though), the citizens of Toledo did. It got ugly this weekend. The Nazis assembled to protest gang violence. Gangs protested the Nazis by engaging in violence. Which hate group do you suppose went home thinking it made its point?

"This never should have happened," Ed Kusina, 80, told the Associated Press regarding the racist group gathering in his neighborhood, and serving as an excuse for a riot, on Saturday. "They should have never let them march here." But the understanding of the Constitution pervasive in the legal profession dictates that citizens of Toledo like Mr. Kusina have no say in whether or not Nazis march through their hometown. Citizens of Toledo disagree, and through unofficial channels ensured that the will of the people--no Nazi march in Toledo--triumphed.

Is any debate about local governments regulating speech necessarily moot? The Constitution of Ohio, after all, contains a bill of rights that resembles the bill of rights in the Constitution of the federal government. But it differs in a few glaring ways, notably in that although the 1851 document affirms the right to speak freely, it holds that citizens are "responsible for the abuse of the right." Doesn't dressing up in a Nazi get-up and shouting racial insults qualify as an "abuse of the right"?

Tough cases make bad law. Banning speech, even extremist speech, is a bad idea. But banning self-government at the local level is a bad idea too. Voters, like mobs, will make mistakes. A city council prohibiting certain political speech is a mistake. Whether you think it is also unconstitutional depends on what you think the words "Congress shall make no law" means.

Dan, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. I hate Ohio Nazis as much as Elwood and Jake hated Illinois Nazis, but the citizens of Toledo no more put a stop to the idiocy of white supremacy by rioting than the Munich capitulation brought "peace in out time"; the mindless violence in only provided a convenient recruiting tool.

Free speech is either free or its not. To say that any limits, imposed in the guise of self-government, are acceptable as long as they are passed by local authorities and not Congress is to subject this most important freedom to the whims of whatever party is in power in a particular jurisdiction.

We've already banned free speech in front of abortion clinics and during the last 60 days prior to elections; what's next?

If there is a time for the sort of abridgement of free speech you suggest with "It doesn't say that the city council of Toledo can't prohibit Nazis from marching in a city park," it certainly isn't on the heels of a riot. Despite your admonishment of the rioters, the timing of your call to limit speech looks like you are blaming the people who wish to speak. Avoiding a riot is no reason for abridging speech unless you wish to give in to criminals.

I think that freer speech is better even though it makes for a messier social order. Give me liberty and give me mess. Who cares if the trains run on time!

Webster: I didn't call to limit speech. I wrote: "Banning speech, even extremist speech, is a bad idea." I realize I'm making a complicated point in this post, but it's not so complicated that you should assign to me opinions the opposite of which I hold.

I find it unclear what your final position is here Dan. "Banning speech, even extremist speech, is a bad idea." But not allowing a march isn't banning speech, rather, it is a restriction of the general right to assembly; Isn't it? You seem to be supporting the right of the city council to deny the use of a public park for a particular march. So wouldn't the City Council denying the Nazis an opportunity to march in the city park be licit on grounds separate from whether "free speech" comes into play? The state constitution lists the ways in which public assembly of citizens is deemed licit.

Btw, I think that what constitutes "speech" and, more importantly, what is "protected" speech is not thought about very clearly anymore (if it ever was). For example, stripteases are not forms of "speech" nor is porn generally speaking. Marches as well aren't forms of "speech" but are forms of assembly which come under different considerations than speech for the most part.

Dan,
I think it's fair to describe disallowing Nazi Day in the park as placing limits on speech or limiting speech. It's also fair to find that description imperfect. I suspect you do not wish to curb content, but curbing content is not the only way to limit speech.

Dan makes excellent points about the Constitution. The "incorporation" of these rights is the legalese for the usurpation of the power to make these decisions by the federal judiciary. The question is one for the people of Ohio or of Toledo to decide.
If I were a member of the community with the power to make such a decision, I would certainly consider the possibility that a group would stir up violence among its own supporters with its actions and if the probability were significant I would severely constrain or punish the demonstrations. There should be no right to call for a riot.
But forbidding a demonstration, even one sparked by ugly ideas, because of what opponents of the demonstration may do, gives power to those who would disregard the law and civility. That is a terrible idea. Such a demonstration might be constrained so that the insulted can avoid it, but forbidding it would empower extremists and those prone to violence.

Webster: I'm pretty much a free speech absolutist. My point is that I don't think that the people who wrote the Constitution were. If they were, instead of writing "Congress shall make no law" forbidding speech or assembly, they might have simply written that all Americans have a right to free speech. That's not what they wrote, even if everybody today imagines that it was. The First Amendment is a limitation on Congress, and not a limitation on state, county, and local governments.

Dan,
As I often say on occasions like this, I am no consititutional scholar. I do think that your understanding of the free speech clause, applied to the other clauses in Article I of the Bill of Rights, would allow for a country most unlike ours. It wouldn't necessitate a different country, but it would certainly make it possible if states, counties, and cities could establish religion, disallow free exercise thereof, reject the free press and speech, et cetera. I guess I'll have to look at the Fed Papers and see what they had to say about Congress vs states. You probably have already done so, and you probably are correct in your understanding. We shall see.

The Nazis have their right of free speech and they won the day. They played the gang members like a fiddle. As reisdent of Wood County ( across the Maumee River from Toledo) I watched with interest the riot in N. Toledo. A couple of observations:

The Nazis have the right to free speech but who gave the gangs the right to destroy property?

The gang problem in N. Toledo is in large part the fault of the incompetent Jack Ford who as mayor has gutted the gang task force within the police dept.

Most of the people you all saw on FOX were not from Toledo. Many of the 500 came from Detroit, Cleveland, and Akron. The local gangs invited their far flung bretheren.

The so called riot encompassed less than one half block. Everywhere else was quiet.

Not one news source got down to the real source of why the idiot Nazis were here. Here's the gist. North Toledo is a diverse neighborhood with a large Polish and African American community. For the most part everyone gets along. One white neighbor keeps an immaculate lawn, his black neighbor does not and her yard looks like a junk yard. They have been carping at each other for years. Somehow the American Nazi party got a hold of this squabble and decided to elevate the situaton.

All in all it wasn't that big of a deal considering that the news outlets tried to make it sound like the Watts riots. I'm hoping that the next Mayor ( probably Carty Finkbeiner) will put the gang task force back to full strength.

One more observation. Toledo Ohio is one of the most racially tolerant cities in the country and when Detroit, LA, and Cleveland were on fire in the '60's all was quiet in NW Ohio.

Thanks, Patrick, for providing the local scoop.

Holy Toledo! I thought it was New Orleans.

What happened in Toledo was not mindless gang violence. Would gangs have acted this way if the nazis had not been there? I dont think so. It was an organized community who understood that simply the presence of Nazis was an act of violence. THey choose to defend themselves and their community by throwring rocks, bricks ect. Lets be clear, The Nazis were not marching with only the intention of showing disgruntledness with gangs. THey were making a racist point by choosing a predominintly black area. Nazism is a terrible terrible thing, and while they have (and need) the ability to express themeselvs, we have the right to show them how we feel, and if it gets violent then so be it. Violence against nazis is justified simply by thinking about what their history is (the extermination of 6 million innocent people). So good job people of Toledo by showing that Nazi scum where their place is and furthermore by activly resisting the police who have served as the physical manifestations of an illegtimate state that has terrorized this area. Long live the peoples resistance.

Fascism never again!

You say "Fascism never again", but I guess complete chaos is ok?

The people who perpetrated the violence, as stated earlier here, recruited thug gangs to the problem area and the violence was turned on the cops who were just trying to neutralize the situation and, when there was nobody else to throw rocks and bricks at, they started breaking into places and looting.

As wrong as they are, at least the Nazis had some semblance of purpose and organization.

This was wrong on a lot of levels but destroying a neighborhood and battling the authorities might be considered more heinous than the assembly.

At least the gangs are directing their violence in the right direction this time. How great would it be if we could all gangs to stop attacking one another and start attacking Nazis instead.

remeber the police were the ones who started the violence by using force on the counter protesters. If you are attacked with chemical weapons like tear gas you are gonna put up a fight too and you have every right to.

the only role of the police is to protect the ruiling class and thier property, so go ahead throw a brick...

This is the problem, you justify the violence no matter who it's directed against and justifying the violence is the biggest problem.

Does this make the gang thugs any better than the Nazi thugs? Don't think so.

Funny thing is, the Nazis are smart enough to not be killing their own. The Gangsters kill their own brothers.

Natural selection, I guess.

hahah natural selection. I dont think its a question of gang members not being smart. But if gang members could be organized into a organized force against fascism, the state, and capitalism, for after all it is those reasons why they are in poverty and take sides with gangs, then we might be able to have a chance at organizing revolutionary communities. Itll take awhile no doubt. I mean, nazis are pretty stupid, remember these people advocate genoicide. Thats a pretty stupid idea. I do justify violence against Nazis. Now thats not to say that i support government intervention. If the government ever restricts freedom of speech even to Nazis we will have a bigger battle to fight than just against some hitler humping nazis. But any nazi that comes into my neighborhood and preaches fascism better watch out for bricks, rocks, and any and all easily thrown projectiles

hahah natural selection. I dont think its a question of gang members not being smart. But if gang members could be organized into a organized force against fascism, the state, and capitalism, for after all it is those reasons why they are in poverty and take sides with gangs, then we might be able to have a chance at organizing revolutionary communities. Itll take awhile no doubt. I mean, nazis are pretty stupid, remember these people advocate genoicide. Thats a pretty stupid idea. I do justify violence against Nazis. Now thats not to say that i support government intervention. If the government ever restricts freedom of speech even to Nazis we will have a bigger battle to fight than just against some hitler humping nazis. But any nazi that comes into my neighborhood and preaches fascism better watch out for bricks, rocks, and any and all easily thrown projectiles

Ah, yes. Fascism, state, and capitalism. If only there were no state or capitalism or fascism (oh that's right, we don't have fascism) those gang members would all be productive farmers and factory workers organized and efficient. Very neat and tidy. Why haven't we all thought of this before. There would be no crime or poverty. Wouldn't that be cool.

Anyone throwing a brick at someone for speaking belongs in jail. Anyone throwing a brick at someone for supporting the twaddle hask spouts likewise belongs in jail. People, even Nazis, have a right to expression in public places without fear of assault. Denying them the right denies everyone the right.

Burn the Nazi scum!!

Burn the Nazi scum!!