🚀 go-pugleaf

>
>- I think there's no point to that story. Assault is illegal.  I was tell-
>ing you the law already, as it stands.
>
  My point is not to say assault is legal, but only to illustrate that the
spirit of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the ideas before,
that built our government, were not to protect us soley from government, but
mainly from ourselves.
  We have consented to have government not merely to protect ourselves from
government. If this were so, there would be no reason to have government.
Government exists to: 
  1) protect our life/property (be it from threats internal to the state or
     external to the state)
  2) to be an indifferent judge (to determine what is right by imposing laws)
  3) to enforce legal decisions
 (above paraphrased from Locke's Second Treatise of Government, 1690.  relevant
  here since many of Locke's ideas were incorporated into our government)
>
>- Anyhow; Is there ANY situation that you could justify action (covert or
>not) from a group to disable or thwart another group (or group's activities?)
                                   I'll limit this just to speech ^^^^^^^^^^^
  Yes.  Of course the answer is yes with an ANY in that question.  But in this
particular situation, no I cannot justify the action of censoring the Klan just
because of what they say.  At least not with the 'freedom of speech' that this
country supports.  With freedom of speech we must also let those who don't
don't share our viewpoint have the stand.  I am certain that, if they had
their way, the Klan would have supressed equal rights speakers. (And try they
did)  And just as we can't let our rights be taken away, we cannot abridge
the offending group's right to freedom of speech.  Our power is in having
the right to speak out against them.
>
>- (To answer my own question)  There is to me;  The KKK and others are training
>NOW, to kill people like ME.  This is not abstract or distant to me, it is
>immediate and dangerous.
>
  This is where points 2 & 3 come in.  If actions of a group's speech (ie.
direct threat, malicious orders) affect us in detrimental way, it is up to
the government to make a decision and enforce it.  The constitution leaves
it up to the government to be an unbiased judge, for just as the Klan is too
strong in one direction, we may be too strong in the other.