What I don’t understand is why municipalities and state governments, as well as institutions, like UVA this week, suffer their own mass delusion and timidity to legally permit rallies proclaiming bigotry and violence. The endemic hate speech of these events should be easy to show in court as incitement to violence, unprotected speech, thus a reasonable basis to refuse assembly and legally defend the refusal in court. To me, a much more sober-minded approach to such societal calamity than simply, and knowingly, exposing the public to a very high probability of violence. It’s well worth just the risk in a court of law, versus assured wanton violence in the streets. How we actually have the “national conversation” about what speech is or is not protected speech is by actually having it, that is, arguments in a court of law, with words, vice street violence. Yes, I’m sure the jurisprudence is already long, but the “case” can always be re-opened, re-assessed, when the need is refreshed with blood in town square. Hate speech incitement to violence is not free assembly. And that general claim is certainly reasonable to pursue in court and risk losing. That kind of national conversation has the potential to establish cultural and societal norms of acceptable public speech and behavior. And if bigots still want to spew in the streets they’ll have no more legal recourse to do so then they would in the lobby of some bank down the street. So, wake up, Governors, Mayors, and public University Presidents, take it to the courts, stop leaving it to the streets!