Strafgesetzbuch Section 86a - Important reason why it exists. Time for the US to wake up.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. This situation raises some really difficult questions.

In general I have always been pretty much a First Amendment absolutist - but after the events of the weekend I'm beginning to think one could argue that displays of Nazi and related symbols are so inherently inciteful that they don't deserve free speech protection, at least when used in connection with rallies and demonstrations. I know Brandenburg v. Ohio and other Supreme Court cases hold that for expression to be suppressed there must be an immediate threat of violence or incitement to violence; and there's also the argument that suppressing one kind of symbol or speech makes it too easy to justify suppressing other kinds of symbols or speech - but maybe, in this unique case, the Germans have it right. They learned the hard way, and maybe we don't want to learn the same lesson the same way they did. If a symbol has no other purpose than to encourage or incite hate and violence, should it be afforded First Amendment protection at all?