Oh me-o my-o won't you look at miss ohio

I've tried to avoid the whole Toledo mess because it seems to have turned into a racial squabble and once that happens no lessons are learned. Still, I feel that I have to speak out about what I find to be the most troubling aspect of the whole thing -- the fact that the rioters won!

Think about the lesson this sends: If I don't agree with you, all I have to do is threaten or engage in violence and the government will withdraw your right to speak and I'll win. Does anyone else suspect this same strategy will be adopted the next time a controversial issue arises in Toledo? I sure do.

Now I think most people (not all, but most) would agree that the neo-nazi movement is despicable and morally bankrupt. Still, if you have free expression and free speech, you can't say, "No, you can't speak because we don't like what you have to say." I know it's simplistic, but that's the way it is -- at least in my (and most courts') opinions. Yet this lesson seems to be lost on the folks in Toledo.

Much of the anger boiled over because people were upset that city leaders were willing to allow the supremacists to walk through the neighborhood and shout insults, residents and authorities said.

"You can't allow people to come challenge a whole city and not think they weren't going to strike back," said Kenneth Allen, 47, who watched the violence begin near his home.

What really gets me about that is the idea that the government has the power to deny speech rights because the speech is offensive. I know it's hard to stomach when the speech is something like neo-nazi propaganda, but it's still free speech. The disagreement over this can be seen quite clearly in Sunday and Monday headlines in the Washington Post:
Neighbors: Neo-Nazis Had No Right to March (Sunday)
Toledo Mayor: Neo-Nazis Had Right to March (Monday)

Now it's not just Toledo that struggles with this issue. I remember several years ago the Klan wanted to march in Pulaski, TN (birthplace of the modern Klan), but the good folks in Pulaski managed to thwart them through (sort of) legal means. The Klan then came on over to Lawrenceburg to have their march. Now we good Lawrenceburgians weren't overjoyed at having the Klan march in our fair town and I feel sure our leaders tried to come up with a way to stop them, but, much as it might have disappointed us, they had a right to assemble and speak.

This is what really scares me about the trend toward "speech codes" today. Yes most of the time the actual issue at hand is petty, but the principle IS NOT! This is the ultimate slippery slope argument, in my opinion. Once you start banning the nazis, where do you stop? What about a pro-life march in a liberal city? What about a pro-choice march in a conservative town? I don't think this is a game we want to play. The Vol Abroad has commented on this in the UK and I agree with her 100%. It might sound good, but it's a dangerous precedent.

The whole reason I was moved to post on this is that I haven't really seen this bigger danger pointed out in the mainstream outlets. True, I didn't watch all the Sunday talking head shows, but I haven't run across it in my casual reading of coverage. Let me make a distinction. Yes, I see lots of folks (like the mayor of Toledo) who admit that the neo-nazis had the right to assemble and speak, but most then move right on to the question of whether outside gang members were involved in the riot. Then it goes right into a veiled discussion of racial issues. What's missing from the coverage I've seen is the discussion of the message sent by this whole ugly episode. Again, if I don't like your message, I can engage in enough mayhem that the government will just shut you down! That scares me.

Though I sometimes take issue with the ACLU, I greatly admire their stance on free speech issues -- even when the speech is unpopular. Heck, I even give them money (don't tell Mom), but I am a little troubled by their lack of apparent response here. If it were a court case, I have no doubt that the ACLU would back the neo-nazis. As for the troubling (to me) implication of the "let's get violent and they will make the nazis go away" strategy, though, the ACLU is mum. At least I can't find any mention of this on their website.

So here it is folks -- if speech is free, then that has to apply for disagreeable as well as agreeable speech. I really do think it's that simple.