Check the part where the ACLU argued successfully to allow the real NAZIs a platform, e.g. public parades. That was of course last century.
You can't keep people from going out in public unless they've committed a crime.
The issue was that the American Nazi Party, which preaches hate, and which claims that the Holocaust never happened, applied for a permit to hold a march in a neighborhood of Skokie, Illinois, which was home to a very large number of Holocaust survivors. This was viewed by the Holocaust survivors as a threat of physical violence against them, by people with a history of physical violence.
The ACLU took the absolutist free speech position, and without being asked by any party to the court case, filed an amicus brief arguing in favor of requiring the city to issue the permit. FWIW, this was when I quit giving money to the ACLU. I now support the Center For Constitutional Rights instead. Around the same time the ACLU filed an amicus brief in another court case, in which it argued, again from a free speech perspective, that tobacco companies should be allowed to advertise tobacco in venues where those ads would be seen by children. Note that U.S. law already has restrictions against certain kinds of speech. Free-speech absolutism is very much a minority view. Incitement to violence is illegal, and that was the issue at stake in the Skokie case: Were the Nazis inciting to violence?
In the end, IIRC, the permit was granted but the march was never held, as the Nazis, who advocated the murder of all Jews, feared for their own safety if they held the march in that venue.
www.marketwatch.com
www.jta.org
