The organisation that determined itself to be above the law was the party that didn't want the Christians to be heard or the Christians?
if you read the article contained in my response #24 (i think--at the bottom of the first page of this thread in any event), you'd already know there was no party in this case who "didn't want the christians to be heard" and there'd be no need for me to post it again here:
"Festival organizer Fay Beydoun said the evangelical group was being offered a good spot in an area with a number of other religious, nonprofit and political groups. “You have to pass right in front of it to get anywhere,” said Beydoun, executive director of the American Arab Chamber of Commerce.
The group sued Dearborn after police told the Rev. George Saieg members would need to restrict literature distribution to a designated table-and-booth section of the festival site.
The city said safely accommodating the 150,000 daily festival-goers requires limits on where people can leaflet. It said other Christian and Muslim groups already have tables and booths for distributing material at the festival.
City officials say anyone is free to have conversations — but not leaflet — on sidewalks within the festival’s barricades.
“It appears to be a legitimate governmental interest for crowd control and safety,” Edmunds said in denying the request. “The festival area is more akin to a fair than a normal city street.”
there would be no dispute if these 'jews for jesus' wannabes had not convinced themselves they somehow deserved special consideration and, after having their case heard by a federal judge who rejected their arguments, chosen to violate what seems to be a reasonable, legitimate city ordinance.
I myself find so-called "peace activists" roaming the streets much more Nazi-like then the states or governments they call "fascist".
i'm not at all sure how that's relevant to the statement you quoted in which i referred to tactics used by actual nazis and their sympathizers to advance their cause during the actual 1920s-early 1930s in the actual country of germany--unless what you're saying is you feel hitler and the sa were somehow less nazi-like than the peace activists to whom you allude.
In my experience those neo-nazis who want a public forum just rename themselves "peace activists" and are then acknowledged as standing above the law.
once again, i wasn't theorizing but referring to actual organizations that are publicly proclaimed by their members as neo-nazis. i doubt they'd appreciate being designated as peace activists. they generally wear uniforms similar to or clearly derivative of those worn by ss members, bear colors festooned with swastikas, etc.
when they elect to hold rallies on public property, they acquire all necessary permits and make a point of fully complying with local regulations. it has nothing to do with respecting authority or claiming special status; the most provocative element is location. communities with ethnic majorities are often targeted--especially places like skokie il at a time when it was home\ to a substantial number of holocaust survivors.