"I’ve never seen an asterisk on the First Amendment which states “except for Nazis”, although one can argue that there should be one thus labeled. We all know, however, that this is a dangerous precedent, because if you outlaw “hate crimes” like Nazism, the door is opened for any other -ism or philosophy to be likewise circumscribed.
It’s just unfortunate that in order to protect our general freedoms, we often have to take the side of the loathsome—and few are more loathsome than Nazis—in order to protect the principle. And the uncomfortable part of living in a free society is that you always run the risk of allowing the seeds of your own destruction to flourish, because, let’s face it, objectionable philosophies do not generally include “freedom of” anything in their principles. "
I couldn't agree more with Kim. I see protection of vile speech by Nazi's, the KKK etc. as vital to free speech rights. The fact that we protect free speech rights of even the most universally objectionable groups acts as a buffer against government intrusion on free speech. Remove that buffer and you are greasing the top of a very slippery slope. If you outlaw "hate crimes," well how will they be defined? and by whom? They're amorphous just like "common-sense gun control." If you don't think that will lead to further restrictions you are hopelessly naive. Government always restricts personal liberties unless impeded from doing so.
Also, if the government can take kids from their parents for teaching them Nazism, what else can they take them for? Practicing a religion the state decides it doesn't like? What about having your kids read "revolutionary" or "insurrectionist" literature, or even the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights? If the State can take your children based on your teaching them "objectionable" materials, and they are the final arbiter of what is "objectionable" then do you really have any parental rights at all?