Fortunately the all talk guy can not do much because there are still some other branches of government. But that doesn't mean that he wouldn't if he could.

The freedom of speech thing matters not one bit to the alt-right and the Nazis longer than it takes them to overthrow the present order, after that it will go out the window very quickly.

Democracy can be destroyed, it has happened before and it likely will happen again, there is absolutely no reason to believe that it could not happen in America.

Anyway, this whole discussion isn't about free speech to begin with, it is about hate speech and inciting to violence.

Well, those things aren't the same. 'Hate speech' is protected in America (by omission; it's not defined anywhere). Incitement to violence is emphatically not, and is an offense. That being said, I certainly don't intend to limit our debate to semantics when it's actually the broader thrust of your argument that I want to challenge. (There is quite a good write-up here on definitions[1])

I agree that there is no reason why such destruction could not happen here. That is why I believe it is particularly important not to argue for narrow exemptions to important constitutional protections on the grounds of a perceived acute threat. Those protections are shields against the kind of 'democracide' that we may face, so why would we take them apart ourselves?

Furthermore, I think we're safer for having these Nazis out in the open. Their ideas are more easily ridiculed; they are denied the romantic attraction of being driven underground; and their members are more easily monitored (and infiltrated) by the FBI such that any planned atrocities are more readily stopped. They are not an existential threat to the republic, rather, a tiny minority of dangerous people who need to be monitored and arrested whenever they break a law.

[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

I think your comment must have landed here through a time warp of sorts, it appears to have been written last Wednesday and does not take into account the developments since then.

Maybe you would like to update it to present day knowledge?

Since you didn't actually write anything substantive in your quite witty comment, I'll have to put words in your mouth. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You see Wednesday as a sign of an emboldened neo-Nazi movement, an indication of a growing threat, a sign that a formerly dormant group has begun taking direct action.

I see it as a new national awareness of a group of people who have been here all along, a desperately sad act of murder by a damaged man, and a discredited and clumsy president managing to align himself publicly with an evil ideology decried by everyone except those same neo Nazis.

And you're advocating for, well, I'm not actually sure, but some sort of legislative change to tackle the threat you perceive because you believe it will make us safer. I'm pushing for the opposite, because I believe that your way will drive dangerous people further into the shadows while undermining those defenses we talked about above.

Probably there is a middle way, maybe involving using existing laws such as those used to combat gangs to break apart specific groups of neo Nazis, or quietly increasing the funding of those parts of the FBI which are responsible for domestic extremism.

Probably I am wrong and you are right. I do not think I can convince you, but perhaps you can convince me.

> And you're advocating for, well, I'm not actually sure, but some sort of legislative change to tackle the threat you perceive because you believe it will make us safer.

No, I'm not advocating for that at all.

For the rest I would class your assessment as 'mostly accurate', but the devil is in the details.

If you would like to take this off-line I'd be more than happy to converse with you, jacques@mattheij.com.

Thanks Jacques, appreciate the offer. I've sent you an email.