advertisement

Neo-Nazi chief appeals permit denial, but vows to march regardless

Saturday, September 6, 2008 | 6:41 p.m. CDT; updated 10:13 p.m. CDT, Saturday, September 6, 2008

COLUMBIA — The National Socialist Movement will come to Columbia on Nov. 8 "with or without a permit" according to a letter sent from national Commander Jeff Schoep to Interim police Chief Tom Dresner.

On Aug. 29, Dresner denied the request made by the Missouri chapter of the neo-Nazi group for a parade permit. Schoep asked Dresner in the letter to "consider this our appeal to the initial denial of parade permit."

Schoep said attorneys have assured him that Columbia police could not interfere and told Dresner in the letter that the NSM "would prefer you reconsider our reasonable request for a parade permit, however if you are unwilling to work with us on this matter we can proceed without any further contact or cooperation."

Dresner said his reason for denying NSM the permit was because there wouldn't be enough police resources to cover both the rally and the scheduled football game between MU and Kansas State.

"A Football game is not a valid reason to deny us our permit," wrote Schoep in the letter.

The NSM has a good relationship with most police departments, Schoep said, but the group is not afraid to have the courts step in. "If the NSM is forced back into the Courts to challenge a violation of our rights once again, I will free up every last dime we have at our disposal to hire the absolute best Attorney we can find in the State of Missouri to sue the City," Schoep said.

The NSM said it is willing to work with the police and negotiate amendments to the permit.

 

 


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Charles Dudley Jr September 7, 2008 | 4:21 a.m.

Let them march at the fair grounds where nobody will care or see them.

(Report Comment)
Amber Hanneken September 7, 2008 | 11:22 a.m.

"'A Football game is not a valid reason to deny us our permit,' wrote Schoep in the letter."

Yes it is. Have they ever been here on game day? I can't imagine what traffic and crowds would be like without the police directing. The stadium can hold 68,349 people alone and has packed more than 70,000 in there since the team's recent popularity. That is not including the hundreds to thousands that tailgate outside of the stadium and along the streets. I think it's a very valid reason.

Why can't they pick a non-game day?
Then again, I do like Charles suggestion.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr September 7, 2008 | 1:24 p.m.

Well it only makes more sense really as then if local people want to go be apart of it let them do so and they can scream through their bull horns all they want to and nobody will really care either way. They can have their forum to discuss topics of their interest with who ever they invite or who ever shows up and then let the State Highway Patrol and the Sheriff's Department deal with the situation ad then they can call up the Missouri National Guard to help with any traffic problems or crowd control and the State can foot the bill and not the citizens of Columbia.

(Report Comment)
USNN USNN September 7, 2008 | 7:00 p.m.

As much as i dislike the NSM a football game is not a legal reason to deny a permit. The city can not violate their First Amendment rights. They can gather and march with no permit under the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

As long as they do what they do peacefully, and keep in mind threats from those that come to protest the NSM do not affect the peacefulness of their event (see numerous(sp) court cases), there is no law that can prevent them. The First Amendment is not there to protect popular speech but rather that which is unpopular.

(Report Comment)
Mike Bradley September 7, 2008 | 9:16 p.m.

I agree, the First Amendment should take priority over a football game. Plus, the topic and reason for the NSM demonstration is to counter the flood of illegal aliens. This, also, should take priority over a football game.

Why doesn't the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People publicly debate someone from the NSM? Or one of the rabbis that are complaining about the NSM exercising their Constitutional right should challenge the National Socialist Movement to a public debate.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr September 8, 2008 | 7:06 a.m.

Well if you want them to be able to do this protest why don't you volunteer your own home or front yard so the city does not have to pick up the tab or foot the bill on this.

I still stand by let them use the county fair grounds as their place to march and then all are happy.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz September 8, 2008 | 9:50 a.m.

Chuck, doesn't forcing NSM to the fair grounds only create a free speech zone (sarcasm intended of course) and doesn't uphold their First Amendment rights? What if they wanted to set up at the Twilight Festival, like other issue groups that have their own opinions?

I don't approve their message, but they have a First Amendment right to speak their filth.

Don't forget that the city lost a suit related to the First Amendment due to leasing out the airport to the annual air show. They are pretty much darned if they do and darned if they don't in this case.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro September 8, 2008 | 10:34 a.m.

"the right to peaceably assemble!"

When was the last time you remember a peaceable nutzy event?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzs5E2cus...

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr September 8, 2008 | 10:54 a.m.

These people do not know the meaning of the word peaceful by far and it is a fair compromise since they do not want to compromise on the date you offer a concession to the location instead.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro September 8, 2008 | 10:56 a.m.

P.S.-

Dear USNN USNN:

We use our real names on this site!

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr September 8, 2008 | 11:00 a.m.

ray shapiro just ignore John Schultz as obviously he believes anybody should be allowed to do anything they want to do no matter how much it imposes or threatens other citizens,their own values or their own peace of mind.

The words Nazi and Peaceful are true oxymorons in this case just as it is obvious John Schultz is a radical leftist liberal Republican.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz September 8, 2008 | 12:28 p.m.

Chuck, moi - a radical leftist liberal Republican? Does such a beast exist? I am a Libertarian, and go use your precious Google if that confuses you on my political ideology.

Did you and the other consumers of the adaptive recreation program procure a permit before your event in front of city hall? If so, do you feel your speech would have been curtailed if it had been denied?

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr September 8, 2008 | 2:59 p.m.

Yes we did get a permit as required by city ordinance. That is what good citizens do and not threaten to protest anyway because they think they can then expect to be respected in the same manner.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz September 8, 2008 | 4:08 p.m.

Interesting, do you have a link for the permit? The only thing I saw on the CPD's page was for parades and sound amplification.

(Report Comment)
Jenny Rogers September 8, 2008 | 7:17 p.m.

I am the point person for coordinating street closings for the university, and I can tell you that the police are not using the football game as an excuse for denying this permit. Columbia PD absolutely does not allow street closings--for parades, for 5ks, etc--on the days of home football games, and it has nothing to do with elevating a sporting event above free speech. It is simply a matter of logistics, and there aren't enough officers to deal with two major events on one day.

Denying the permit because of lack of resources to protect these people when they stage their parade is hardly violating their free speech. Pick another day, folks. The football schedule was set ages ago.

(Report Comment)
Mike Bradley September 8, 2008 | 9:38 p.m.

Regarding violence and National Socialist Movement demonstrations, etc., the people who are violent are not the Nazis, it's the people who are there to protest the NSM people exercising their free speech rights. They are usually Anti-Racist Action and pro-Communist groups like that who believe people who don't agree with them should not be allowed to speak and if they try to speak they should be beat and violently attacked.

Because of the importance of free speech and the First Amendment, if the city police can't handle both the NSM parade and the football game, then state police and/or county should help out. As Americans we should hold the First Amendment sacred.

(Report Comment)
USNN USNN September 8, 2008 | 11:32 p.m.

Jenny, peoples Constitutional and Civil Rights will trump a football game from now until the end of time or this great nation. I can see pulled pork becoming the national dish of both Israel and Iran first. Seriously if the city and police continue on this course of action they will loose horribly in court and your tax dollars will pay for all of it, the cities lawyers, the NSM lawyers, the damages awarded (and they will get damages look up a guy named Richard Barrett and his group the Nationalist Movement), and of course all the expenses of a court hearing (lights, heat/air, ect).

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr September 9, 2008 | 5:06 a.m.

John Schultz it is a PDF type of Download.

http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/Police/Docum...

Download it,fill it out,return it to the proper person.

And to USNN USNN why don't you use the fairgrounds for your march and rally as then you will not have to worry about anybody attacking you and in doing so you will actually be showing the citizens of Columbia that you are responsible citizens in all of this matter instead of trying to bully your way through town and drawing in those who would attack you as you fear so that you need police protection.

(Report Comment)
USNN USNN September 9, 2008 | 1:05 p.m.

Not my march or rally Chuck. I have a great dislike for the NSM. How ever i do support their rights. We have young men and women over seas dieing every day fighting for those rights, its just wrong for some one to take a dump on that. As to the police protecting the NSM well thats up to the PD isn't it? I know of no law that says that there must be police officers following or leading people when they choose to express their First Amendment Rights.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr September 9, 2008 | 1:32 p.m.

USNN USNN alot of those young men and women that are dieing daily to protect our rights are in "police actions" and not "declared wars" so let's keep that in perspective please.
I want people as well to have freedom of speech and such as long as they do it respectfully and as responsible citizens.The NSM is neither of the above.

(Report Comment)
USNN USNN September 9, 2008 | 1:41 p.m.

The First Amendment makes no mention of the need for speech to be made by either respectful or responsible citizens. Also there is no difference between biting it in a police action or a declared war, your body still comes home with a flag draped over it. Our troops fight where those over them order them to, dieing in Iraq is no different then having died in Normandy with the exception that every one in Iraq volunteered(sp) and in WW2 they had a draft going.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro September 9, 2008 | 6:53 p.m.

"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I would take that "the right of people peaceably to assemble" would include respectful or responsible citizens.
Should the people turn "ugly" I would think that the authorities have the "right" to disperse the crowd. (Then again, I've never seen a "pretty" nazi. Have you?)

(Report Comment)
USNN USNN September 9, 2008 | 7:10 p.m.

The NSM is allowed to assemble peacefully all they want when ever they want, regardless of any threats of violence from those that would oppose them. Its been upheld in many courts and not just for NSM. Also one can look at many NSM actions over the past few years, like say their Orlando march or the first planed Toledo march, not a single NSM member arrested but plenty of those there to oppose them were after getting violent and not listening to lawful police orders.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr September 9, 2008 | 7:48 p.m.

They may not cause the riots themselves but they do contribute to those riots being started by their actions and beliefs and that is the catalyst that starts those riotous activities we see. There in is the problem of their wearing German Nazi/Gestapo type regalia as the symbols of their beliefs which as we all know was Hitler's Germany and symbols of oppression,death and misery for many who opposed his rein of terror and self glorification on his march to create the pure and true one nation world or as we know it as a "New World Order" which is in their beliefs as well.
There in is the problem with this as no real American wants to see anything even relating to Nazi Germany,their beliefs,regalia nor hear their Gestapo like propaganda on the streets of America after knowing all of the atrocities that Hitler's Nazi Germany put upon the citizens of the free world. That was why we as Americans joined into that war and that is why we "zerged it up with others" and went and kicked their sorry butts out of power. Then having seen these atrocities they perpetrated upon their own citizens America as a whole stood up and proclaimed "never again".
These are the same reasons these Neo-Nazi individuals are not welcomed in our city or other cities around our country and as such citizens rise up in protest and if they must also to riot to get their own message across "Not in my city" and "Never again".

(Report Comment)
USNN USNN September 9, 2008 | 7:56 p.m.

The people rioting are not NSM though, and the law is you can not prevent some ones free expression due to the threats of others, other wise the RNC would have been canceled. Also we didn't join WW2 because of Hitler, the American people wanted to stay out of Europe's war, we joined due to Japan attacking our fleet at Pearl.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr September 9, 2008 | 9:16 p.m.

If those who are supposedly peacefully protesting are inciting those other citizens to riot in a non peaceful manner it is and can be used as an excuse to not give out the permit. Whether you think so or not is not the question the question is though who's safety comes first those supposedly peacefully protesting or those they are inciting to riot against them? If there is a reason that is causing those to stand up and riot violently in protest against those supposedly protesting peacefully then the police can say "hey we are not going to give out this permit and we do not have too either". Now if no permit is given out that frees up the police to "arrest those on both sides of this issue". One side for inciting the violent rioting by their actions that caused said rioting and the other side for rioting in protest of the protest if any violence erupts.
This can stand in any court of law clear up to the Supreme Courts of Washington itself,First Amendment or not. It might tie up both sides in endless battles but it also prevents any further so called peaceful protesting to take place as well where the incident took place.

(Report Comment)
USNN USNN September 9, 2008 | 10:12 p.m.

Chuck, once again your wrong. The case law is that peoples freedom of speech may not be violated due to threats of others. The NSM may say what ever they wish, as long as what THEY are saying does not incite imminent lawlessness. Meaning as long as an NSM member isn't telling other NSM members to go commit acts of violence then they are in no violation of the law. The fact that a group of people show up to protest and plan to commit violence is not the fault of the NSM, and as such it has no bearing on the rights of the NSM to make their speeches.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr September 10, 2008 | 4:50 a.m.

You miss the point but here it is once again: The NSM causes others to incite to riot by their views ans that is not allowed by law to incite or bait others to cause acts of riotous behaviors that can or could lead to other innocent citizens getting hurt in any way. If you are the cause of others to violently riot then you are perpetrating the act by your actions. It is called "guilt by association" which in this case the NSM as the perpetrators. Best you go study the laws man some more.

(Report Comment)
fresa jacobs September 10, 2008 | 10:54 a.m.

Their right to free speech isn't being denied, just their ability to use the street for a parade. The NSM can still use the sidewalks. Their proposed parade route runs north-south through downtown and would shut down Broadway for who knows how long. That's not good, home football games already cause a significant backup of traffic along Stadium Blvd. Two major east-west routes would be essentially shut down and ambulances, firetrucks, etc would be hard pressed to find good alternative routes that weren't clogged with traffic.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking September 10, 2008 | 1:22 p.m.

Chuck, it's not called "guilt by association" It's called "inciting a riot". Guilt by association means a person is presumed guilty because of an association or relationship with a known or suspected criminal.

The NSM is perfectly within their rights to make speeches. We are within our rights to rebut what they say, or just ignore them. Where those rights stop is when things get physical.

DK

(Report Comment)
USNN USNN September 10, 2008 | 2:02 p.m.

Chuck your missing the point, NSM is not inciting riots. If some one riots because they don't like what the NSM has to say that is not the NSM's fault, and they can not be held responsible before or after the fact. And as to the point made by fresa, a football game means as much as a bucket of hogs spit compared to the right people have under the First Amendment.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr September 10, 2008 | 3:57 p.m.

You are wrong USNN as when you intentionally put offensive material,protests,speech or whatever in the face of the public you,bait,lure,incite them to act in a manner that could cause a riot to take place.
It is the same as if I went up to your face or you to me and called your wife a "fat overgrown sow of a pig" and it pissed you off to the point you took a punch at me out of frustration or anger. I had baited you into doing the violent act. There is no difference in me calling your wife a "fat ugly overgrown heifer" and these Neo Nazi's walking down our streets shouting obscenities that might offend somebody else. It is inciting to riot and it will hold up in a court of law.
I still stick by the plan I layed out in how to deal with this group of individuals.

(Report Comment)
USNN USNN September 10, 2008 | 4:21 p.m.

Chuck you really need to look up case law. A simple look at cases the NSM has been involved in in the past few years will prove what i am saying. If you came up to me said some thing about my wife and i broke your face, i would be charged with assault and you would not be charged with a single thing. You seem to forget people have the right to NOT listen to what NSM has the Right to say. The NSM does not control the actions of others, same as you do not control my actions if i were to break your face as i could have decided not to hit you regardless matter what your end goal was.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr September 10, 2008 | 5:31 p.m.

The way you defend these people would lead us all to believe you are actually one of their members.
Oh and why not use your real name here are you afraid of public commentary?

(Report Comment)
USNN USNN September 10, 2008 | 8:03 p.m.

You don't have to be a part of the NSM to defend their rights, I'm not NSM. I am a vet though and would defend the Black Panthers rights just the same even though I might not like what they would say. I have followed the NSM for several years now and I know about the court cases they have won under these types of circumstances. The laws are quite clear, your interpretation seems to be muddy though.

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr September 11, 2008 | 4:56 a.m.

Oh so now you state you would support the Black Panthers another known aggressive movement that was huge back in the 60's and 70's for causing all kinds of trouble in our cities across our nation. Ok so you are a Vet and thank you for your service but as a Vet having fought in police actions/wars or w/e they are called these days against these types of things that would bring our country down I have to ask here "What the hell kind of Vet are you"?
Most Vets I know do not want these NSM or any other hate group to come to our city or any city for that matter.
They fought for our freedom from these kinds of groups for a reason and that was not to have some grandchild organization of the former Nazi's such as the NSM come into our country to disrupt our lives.
I bet Patton and other military leaders of ours are rolling over in their graves at the thoughts of these types of groups in our country being that they lost millions of men to fight so we would not have to have these types of groups in our country today. I wonder how they would feel on this issue if alive today? I bet they would be screaming bloody murder as Patton used to and want to ram a bayonet up some NSM's back side.

What does NSNN stand for "Nationalist Socialist Nazi News man"?

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith September 11, 2008 | 7:36 a.m.

Maybe we should look at this "marching" business from the standpoint of the organization requesting the permit to march. It must be fun submitting a request to the City of Columbia; it's like kicking open an anthill and watching all those little ants scurrying around - helter skelter - with no coordinated response. It's surprising they don't submit their requests more frequently.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro September 11, 2008 | 11:31 a.m.

I'm proud of my town's leadership to deny a permit to this group which perpetuates hate and hate-crimes. I would rather see my town sued for saving $40,000 in baby-sitting/escort services to a group which worships an evil relic of history. Let the courts decide if they're due financial compensation for being denied a piece of paper. I, for one, could not find any significant court cases awarding this group money for being denied a permit to march/protest/demonstrate/incite. I did, however, find this little piece from days gone by...
http://publiceyeblog.com/2005/10/15/viol...

(Report Comment)
Charles Dudley Jr September 11, 2008 | 11:53 a.m.

ray shapiro you know our city will breath a huge sigh of relief once we can get past all of the bullox of this event. I say why should we as citizens of this city even have to be put through any of this in the first place is the question. What the citizens of Columbia who put our City Council in place have no say so in any of this?

(Report Comment)
jacop Musa January 5, 2009 | 12:26 a.m.

By the way, if one wants to dwell on the details, and for the ones who repeat that Hamas is responsible for breaking truce with Israeli, I would say go back to the news and you will find that Israel is the one who started the violence on Nov.4. the following link is to a neutral Chinese news agent which stated:

"The latest violence came in the wake of a rocking week, which started on Nov. 4 when Israeli paratroopers killed six Hamas gunmen in a Gaza operation and the Gaza-ruler responded with a barrage of rockets. Since then, over 10 Palestinian militants have been killed and Israel was stricken by tens of rockets"
Source: Xinhua | 11-15-2008 07:47

http://www.cctv.com/english/20081115/100...

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro January 5, 2009 | 12:51 a.m.

jacop Musa:
Infidel and poppy-cock. It started way before that and it started way before this...
Hamas Takes Over Gaza Security Services
By ELI LAKE, Staff Reporter of the Sun | June 15, 2007

WASHINGTON: An Iranian-financed group considered terrorists by America and Israel now control the preventive security services the CIA helped erect 14 years ago in Gaza.
...A CIA spokesman yesterday declined to comment. But a former CIA operations officer who worked in the Middle East, Robert Baer, said it was a major blow to Fatah, the party founded in 1966 by Yasser Arafat that America sought to prop up during the Oslo process as the CIA and Egyptian security services trained its members in the hopes that they would take action against jihadists such as Hamas...

***And what's the deal with posting on a Nazi related article site? Coward!

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 5, 2009 | 1:26 a.m.

The facts are:

The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

In De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S 353 (1937), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the right to peaceably assemble "for lawful discussion, however unpopular the sponsorship, cannot be made a crime." The decision applied the First Amendment right of peaceful assembly to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939), the high court ruled that peaceful demonstrators may not be prosecuted for "disorderly conduct." This case also secured streets and sidewalks as public forums.

And the right to peaceably was further extended to include the act of disseminating information in Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939), for instance, refers to the right to assemble for the "communication of views on national questions" and for "disseminating information."

And VERY IMPORTANTLY in Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963), in an 8-to-1 decision, the high court overturned the breach of peace convictions of 180 black students who had peacefully marched to the state capitol to protest discrimination. The police stopped the demonstration and arrested the students because they were afraid that the 200-300 who gathered to watch the demonstration might cause a riot. The court held the state law unconstitutionally over-broad because it penalized the exercise of free speech, peaceable assembly, and the right of petition for a redress of grievances. A disorderly crowd, or the fear of one, cannot be used to stop a peaceful demonstration or cancel the right of peaceable assembly.

And in summary:

The right to peaceably is that of the citizens of the USA. The dissemination information by peaceful assembly is included in our first amendment right o peaceably assemble. A disorderly crowd, or the fear of one, cannot be used to stop a peaceful demonstration or cancel the right of peaceable assembly. The "fear" or a riot occurring is NOT enough to violate a citizen or a group of citizen's first amendment right to peaceably assemble.

I do NOT agree with the beliefs of the NSM, however they are citizens with rights also. The denial of those rights is far worse than having an event occur that I or anyone else does not particularly relish. Once we start overlooking or devaluing a citizen's or a group of citizens constitutional rights, we approach a very slippery slope that serves nobody's best interests.

Rick

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 5, 2009 | 1:31 a.m.

The facts are:

The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

In De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S 353 (1937), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the right to peaceably assemble "for lawful discussion, however unpopular the sponsorship, cannot be made a crime." The decision applied the First Amendment right of peaceful assembly to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939), the high court ruled that peaceful demonstrators may not be prosecuted for "disorderly conduct." This case also secured streets and sidewalks as public forums.

And the right to peaceably was further extended to include the act of disseminating information in Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939), for instance, refers to the right to assemble for the "communication of views on national questions" and for "disseminating information."

And VERY IMPORTANTLY in Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963), in an 8-to-1 decision, the high court overturned the breach of peace convictions of 180 black students who had peacefully marched to the state capitol to protest discrimination. The police stopped the demonstration and arrested the students because they were afraid that the 200-300 who gathered to watch the demonstration might cause a riot. The court held the state law unconstitutionally over-broad because it penalized the exercise of free speech, peaceable assembly, and the right of petition for a redress of grievances. A disorderly crowd, or the fear of one, cannot be used to stop a peaceful demonstration or cancel the right of peaceable assembly.

And in summary:

The right to peaceably assemble is that of the citizens of the USA. The dissemination information by peaceful assembly is included in our first amendment right o peaceably assemble. A disorderly crowd, or the fear of one, cannot be used to stop a peaceful demonstration or cancel the right of peaceable assembly. The "fear" or a riot occurring is NOT enough to violate a citizen or a group of citizen's first amendment right to peaceably assemble.

I do NOT agree with the beliefs of the NSM, however they are citizens with rights also. The denial of those rights is far worse than having an event occur that I or anyone else does not particularly relish. Once we start overlooking or devaluing a citizen's or a group of citizens constitutional rights, we approach a very slippery slope that serves nobody's best interests.

Rick

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements