I agree, but you're still gonna have better odds with someone the judge doesn't feel like shit for siding with. A good example of this concept is Rosa Parks.

I agree, but you're still gonna have better odds with someone the judge doesn't feel like shit for siding with. A good example of this concept is Rosa Parks. She was not the first person arrested on the bus seat charge by any means, but the NAACP had been hunting for a likable lead plaintiff simply because convincing judges/public relations are a lot easier with somebody people should like. So while I personally agree with free speech, judges are generally not going to want to hang their logic's hat on defending Nazis. Empowering Nazis doesn't feel like good policy. The justice system is a messy place and lacks the exactitude of computer code. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but it is. FWIW, sources are personal experience: Law school, clerked for two federal judges, run a legal tech nonprofit. Interesting additional reading on this subject is Karl Llewellyn's "Dueling Canons" article. Basically, it argues that judges decide what they wanna do, THEN figure out their logic to get there. http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/files/llewellyn_on_canons.pdf http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/files/llewellyn_on_...