First Amendment

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 4, 2004, 1:26 pm

Yearbook Contains Anti-Semitic Message
POSTED: 7:40 AM EDT June 4, 2004
UPDATED: 11:17 AM EDT June 4, 2004

KEY BISCAYNE, Fla. -- Students at Key Biscayne Elementary will have to hand over their yearbooks today to have a message of hate removed.

Yearbook Has 'Death To Jews' Message In It

An eighth-grader wrote an anti-Semitic remark in German in the comments section. Though misspelled, translated, it means, "Death to the Jews." About 450 copies of the yearbook had already been distributed by the time a parent noticed the phrase and contacted the school.

"It's surprising that it would slip by, but in this case it did," said John Schuster of Miami-Dade County schools.

Students who already had their yearbooks were told to rip out page 66, which is where the words appear. School principal Dr. Ana M. Rasco also sent a letter home to parents. In part, it reads, "In spite of careful editing to ensure that everything printed in the memory (book) is proper and in good taste, some inappropriate material slipped by us."

The eighth grader thought to be responsible has been suspended for the rest of the school year, which ends next week.

Where is the ACLU now? Will they stand up and proclaim first amendment rights of this child to write this?

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » June 4, 2004, 1:28 pm

You do not have the right to hate someone.
Sorry.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » June 4, 2004, 1:31 pm

You do have the right to hate someone...

You do not have the right to threaten them...

And for the record the ACLU has sued on behalf of the American Nazi Party's right to free speech...They aren't selective about defense of rights...

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 4, 2004, 1:33 pm

The little rat bastards parents should have to pay for all 450 copies. It all comes down to the parenting.

Hatred is your business, until you make it mine.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » June 4, 2004, 1:53 pm

that was a pretty pathetic jab mid

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 4, 2004, 2:12 pm

The truth hurts Sion.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » June 4, 2004, 2:15 pm

no, no, forget it, im not even going to bother, let someone else do this

Etasi · Post by **Etasi** » June 4, 2004, 2:29 pm

The problem is that what goes on in schools isn't always protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has, for example, upheld the right of principals to fire teachers for speaking out on "matters of public concern" in cases in which that speech may threaten the "safety" of the school population. However, the use of the term "safety" in some decisions has been rather vague, and speech which threatens to damage the relationship between separate groups in the school's community has been, at times, judged a threat worthy of termination.

As for whether or not the kid had the right to write "death to jews" in his yearbook, it's hard to say. Certain school publications, like school newspapers, aren't always protected by the first amendment, either. There have been cases in which a principal's right to remove from a school newspaper statements he did not agree with has been upheld. It's worth noting, though, that the ACLU involved itself in one such case a few years ago, so even if the "death to jews" yearbook kid's right to free speech wasn't protected in this case, it's likely the ACLU will step in on his behalf if they feel his punishment is a large enough threat to the first amendment.

And Midnyte, why do you even bother posting stuff like this if you have no understanding of what's really going on? Do you really think the ACLU only defends those with whom they agree and/or those who don't say things that the average person isn't going to find offensive? If you'd do just a teeny bit of research, you'd find that isn't the case. Of course, you've proven many, many times that you don't care about looking like an ignorant asshat, so I don't know why I'm surprised by yet another stupid thread from you.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 4, 2004, 2:44 pm

Yes, I actually believe the ACLU has an agenda. Do I think they exist solely to stnad up for those unfairly persecuted? Fuck no.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » June 4, 2004, 2:50 pm

good job, way to jab at a union who's sole purpose is to defend our freedoms which are being greatly threatened in this day in age

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 4, 2004, 2:55 pm

You know, if loosing some rights would mean Midnyte would STFU it might actually be worth it..

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 4, 2004, 3:02 pm

Yeah, hearing a differing point of view is so painful. Thank you for exposing yourself.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 4, 2004, 3:03 pm

I exposed the fact that I thought you were an ignorant, naive, low-intelligent redneck of an idiot a long time ago. Nothing new there.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » June 4, 2004, 3:08 pm

Akaran_D wrote:You do not have the right to hate someone.
Sorry.

Actually you do have the right to hate someone.

That being said, this in my opinion isn't really a first amendment issue.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 4, 2004, 3:27 pm

In 1988 the ACLU barred a doctor from telling a Kansas man's former wife that her ex-husband had tested positive for AIDS. In the words of the director of the ACLU's Privacy and Technology Project, "The benefits of confidentiality outweigh the possibility that somebody may be injured."

In 1989 the government granted tax exemptions for Satanists - a position the ACLU has supported.

In 1993 in Pennsylvania the ACLU successfully opposed parental approval for teaching about substance abuse or human reproduction and forbade any discussion of morality and violence.

In 1995 the ACLU spoke out against the Flag Amendment which would have banned burnings and desecrations of the American flag.

In 1997 the ACLU successfully beseeched the Supreme Court to protect the rights of pornographers on the Internet - including the right to show their images to children.

May 2000 - Arizona Governor Jane Hull issues a proclamation celebrating the birth of Buddha. An ACLU spokesperson said, "Although we may think proclamations are inappropriate, they may not violate the Constitution." (In 1998, when Governor Hull issued a proclamation declaring a "Bible Week," the ACLU sued, claiming a violation of the so-called "separation of church and state.")

April 2002 - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit struck down a Colorado law requiring parents be notified when their underage daughters sought abortions. The ACLU supported the suit to have the law struck down.

April 2002 - The U.S. Supreme Court struck down major portions of the Child Pornography Protection Act, which prohibited Internet porn hawkers from making "virtual" child pornography. The ACLU immediately declared victory, calling it a triumph for "free speech."

February 2003 - A federal district judge prohibited Florida officials from blocking an anti-war demonstration at a public park that featured a peace symbol at a public park, comprised of nude bodies. Said an ACLU attorney, "For these demonstrators, nudity is an essential part of their political expression."

Yes, thank you ACLU. You really are looking out for me.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 4, 2004, 3:31 pm

Nice Track record

Post by **Sylvus** » June 4, 2004, 3:32 pm

I agree with pretty much all of those ACLU "victories".

Particularly the Satanist one, do you really disagree that if other religions can have tax exempt status that Satanists shouldn't be able to? Provided they aren't doing like live baby sacrifices, which I don't think they are.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 4, 2004, 3:38 pm

Sylvus wrote:I agree with pretty much all of those ACLU "victories".

Particularly the Satanist one, do you really disagree that if other religions can have tax exempt status that Satanists shouldn't be able to? Provided they are doing like live baby sacrifices, which I don't think they are.

I stand Corrected

But these I dont like,

"In 1997 the ACLU successfully beseeched the Supreme Court to protect the rights of pornographers on the Internet - including the right to show their images to children."

Now I dont have a problem with Porn on the internet but it needs to be kept away from kids.

"February 2003 - A federal district judge prohibited Florida officials from blocking an anti-war demonstration at a public park that featured a peace symbol at a public park, comprised of nude bodies. Said an ACLU attorney, "For these demonstrators, nudity is an essential part of their political expression."

I have a right to walk through a park and not have to see that.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » June 4, 2004, 3:43 pm

The ACLU certainly has an agenda:

Majority power is limited by the Constitution's Bill of Rights, which consists of the original ten amendments ratified in 1791, plus the three post-Civil War amendments (the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth) and the Nineteenth Amendment (women's suffrage), adopted in 1920.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:

Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor.

Clearly an evil organization...

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » June 4, 2004, 3:46 pm

"In 1997 the ACLU successfully beseeched the Supreme Court to protect the rights of pornographers on the Internet - including the right to show their images to children."

I'm a little skeptical about that, that sounds as if it was made to be the aclu's intention when it wasnt. Did the aclu actually say they wanted to protect the right to show porn to children? I doubt it.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 4, 2004, 3:51 pm

Arbor, yeah that all sounds good. An agenda always sounds good. Below is the link to the GNC and Bush's agenda. It all sounds good, but do you believe it?

http://www.gop.com/GOPAgenda/

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » June 4, 2004, 3:56 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Arbor, yeah that all sounds good. An agenda always sounds good. Below is the link to the GNC and Bush's agenda. It all sounds good, but do you believe it?

http://www.gop.com/GOPAgenda/

I believe that those are their goals, yes...

Karae · Post by **Karae** » June 4, 2004, 3:57 pm

There's one pretty significant differences between this and the earlier story of a principal censoring students political commentary.

The student's involved in the political commentary were doing so with their own intellectual property. In your example, the yearbook is not his own property. As a result, his writing of "Death to Jews" in the margin amounts vandalism. While freedom of speech is a right, vandalism is not. That's why it's not protected by the ACLU.

And the ACLU did not support internet pornographer's rights to show children pornography. They supported their right to make it freely available, to adults, online. The CPPA proposed criminal prosecution for internet pornographers if children viewed their site - even if those children lied and claimed they were adults. It's not their responsibility to perform a background check to verify that, if you click on the "By clicking here you signify that you are above 18 years of age and viewing this site legally" button, you are actually over 18 and not lying.

Personally, I agree with every example you posted...so I guess you proved yourself wrong.

Etasi · Post by **Etasi** » June 4, 2004, 4:28 pm

Karae wrote:The student's involved in the political commentary were doing so with their own intellectual property. In your example, the yearbook is not his own property. As a result, his writing of "Death to Jews" in the margin amounts vandalism. While freedom of speech is a right, vandalism is not. That's why it's not protected by the ACLU.

Just to nitpick, it sounds more like he was in the yearbook class or something since his statement wound up printed in every single yearbook. The (main) reason what he wrote isn't protected by the first amendment is that free speech doesn't give you the right to threaten people, even indirectly.

Midnyte- your inclusion of the Satanists' case serves only to weaken your argument. It seems as though you think the ACLU has a liberal bias and only takes on cases that agree with their social viewpoint. If that were the case, why would they defend Satanists, who offend a lot of people on both sides of the spectrum? Why have they defended the rights of white supremacists in the past? If they were as biased as you seem to be claiming, neither of those things would make sense.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 4, 2004, 4:32 pm

I actually don't agree with any religion having tax exempt status.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » June 4, 2004, 4:35 pm

Even if he was in the Yearbook class, which I believed when I wrote my post, the yearbook is not his intellectual property. It belongs to the school. But its being a threat is another reason it isn't protected speech.

Drolgin Steingrinder · Post by **Drolgin Steingrinder** » June 4, 2004, 4:37 pm

I actually don't agree with any religion having tax exempt status.

...which matters how much in a discussion about free speech and the ACLU? Unless what you're really angry about is that they don't champion only the causes that you find worthy?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 4, 2004, 4:43 pm

If you can't follow the flow of the thread from the beginning then I guess you won't be able to understand how my comment came about.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » June 4, 2004, 4:45 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I actually don't agree with any religion having tax exempt status.

I can appreciate that standpoint, but it's irrelevant to this debate. At the moment, tax exempt status for religion is a reality. ACLU isn't protecting the policy, they are protecting equal access to it.

Drolgin Steingrinder · Post by **Drolgin Steingrinder** » June 4, 2004, 4:52 pm

I ask again: How does your opinion on religious institutions being exempt from taxes have anything to do with the topic? If there's some connection I fail to see here, please enlighten me.

Edit: typo.

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » June 4, 2004, 5:30 pm

The ACLU has pissed off people on both sides of the aisle to be honest. My only problem with them is that they take a message written over 200 years ago and try to interpret literally. Somehow I do not see Thomas Jefferson agreeing with the ACLU or half of the crap that goes on in this country.

The ACLU has done some good things and bad. Some times I think they cross the line but mostly they are right on. Like any body of lawyers...someone is bound to be a screw up and win.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » June 4, 2004, 5:37 pm

Drolgin Steingrinder wrote:I ask again: How does your opinion on religious institutions being exempt from taxes have anything to do with the topic? If there's some connection I fail to see here, please enlighten me.

Edit: typo.

Don't you know, you are supposed to follow his retard logic that only him and possibly a few others understand.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 4, 2004, 6:52 pm

yokels like midnyte are just hacked off at the ACLU for not financing their court case to have KILL ALL NIGERS AND KWEERS added to the official seal of the united states.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 4, 2004, 7:36 pm

kyoukan wrote:yokels like midnyte are just hacked off at the ACLU for not financing their court case to have KILL ALL NIGERS AND KWEERS added to the official seal of the united states.

At least you're consistent.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 4, 2004, 8:15 pm

You still didn't answer Drolgin's question.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 4, 2004, 8:32 pm

Damn you too Lynks? Okay I'll waste the next ten minutes copy and pasting.

Do you really think the ACLU only defends those with whom they agree and/or those who don't say things that the average person isn't going to find offensive?

Yes, I actually believe the ACLU has an agenda. Do I think they exist solely to stnad up for those unfairly persecuted? Fuck no.

good job, way to jab at a union who's sole purpose is to defend our freedoms which are being greatly threatened in this day in age

Quote:
In 1988 the ACLU barred a doctor from telling a Kansas man's former wife that her ex-husband had tested positive for AIDS. In the words of the director of the ACLU's Privacy and Technology Project, "The benefits of confidentiality outweigh the possibility that somebody may be injured."

Quote:
In 1989 the government granted tax exemptions for Satanists - a position the ACLU has supported.

Quote:
In 1993 in Pennsylvania the ACLU successfully opposed parental approval for teaching about substance abuse or human reproduction and forbade any discussion of morality and violence.

Quote:
In 1995 the ACLU spoke out against the Flag Amendment which would have banned burnings and desecrations of the American flag.

Quote:
In 1997 the ACLU successfully beseeched the Supreme Court to protect the rights of pornographers on the Internet - including the right to show their images to children.

Quote:
May 2000 - Arizona Governor Jane Hull issues a proclamation celebrating the birth of Buddha. An ACLU spokesperson said, "Although we may think proclamations are inappropriate, they may not violate the Constitution." (In 1998, when Governor Hull issued a proclamation declaring a "Bible Week," the ACLU sued, claiming a violation of the so-called "separation of church and state.")

Quote:
April 2002 - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit struck down a Colorado law requiring parents be notified when their underage daughters sought abortions. The ACLU supported the suit to have the law struck down.

Quote:
April 2002 - The U.S. Supreme Court struck down major portions of the Child Pornography Protection Act, which prohibited Internet porn hawkers from making "virtual" child pornography. The ACLU immediately declared victory, calling it a triumph for "free speech."

Quote:
February 2003 - A federal district judge prohibited Florida officials from blocking an anti-war demonstration at a public park that featured a peace symbol at a public park, comprised of nude bodies. Said an ACLU attorney, "For these demonstrators, nudity is an essential part of their political expression."

Yes, thank you ACLU. You really are looking out for me.

agree with pretty much all of those ACLU "victories".

Particularly the Satanist one, do you really disagree that if other religions can have tax exempt status that Satanists shouldn't be able to? Provided they aren't doing like live baby sacrifices, which I don't think they are.

Midnyte- your inclusion of the Satanists' case serves only to weaken your argument. It seems as though you think the ACLU has a liberal bias and only takes on cases that agree with their social viewpoint. If that were the case, why would they defend Satanists, who offend a lot of people on both sides of the spectrum? Why have they defended the rights of white supremacists in the past? If they were as biased as you seem to be claiming, neither of those things would make sense.

I actually don't agree with any religion having tax exempt status.

There you go. There's the fucking timeline. Seriously, how you can't use the scroll button and follow a thread is beyond me.

Drolgin Steingrinder · Post by **Drolgin Steingrinder** » June 4, 2004, 8:38 pm

You're still not answering why the hell your opinion on the tax exemption matters.

All you are saying is that the ACLU are bad for arguing that one church should get the same benefits as other churches (at least, that's all I can get from this), which seems to indicate that your issues aren't with tax exemption but with fringe religion.

Please, feel free to correct me. I do want to understand what it is you're trying to get across.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 4, 2004, 9:04 pm

Just drop it. If you can comprehend why I would mention tax exempt status when one of the clips about the ACLU was in reference to tax exempt status, I just don't know what more I could possibly say so you can understand. Maybe oyu are just doing this for fun. If so, it worked, I'm aggrivated.

Drolgin Steingrinder · Post by **Drolgin Steingrinder** » June 4, 2004, 9:41 pm

I'll give you a flowchart:

1. You invoke the ACLU in a post about the First Amendment.

2. Arborealus posted that the ACLU were pretty evenhanded in their efforts and cited their (the ACLU) defense of US National Socialist party as an example.

3. In rebuttal, and in an attempt to show that the ACLU are biased and have a (politically skewed?) agenda, you respond with a string of examples, one of which deals with the ACLU supporting tax exemptions for a fringe religious institution.

4. People pointed out that that particular example actually showed that the ACLU, at least in that particular case, didn't seem to work from an agenda other than even-handed distribution of rights, regardless of religious affiliation, and that your citation of that example actually weakened your 'case'.

5. You responded that you didn't agree with tax exemption for religious institutions.

So I ask you, once again:
What the hell does the practice of tax exemptions for religious institutions and your like or dislike of said practice have to do with anything?

The only relevance here is that the ACLU supported the position that one recognized religious institution should get the same benefits (and have the same obligations) as any other religious institution. Equality under the law. Invoking your personal beliefs as an argument seems to indicate that you feel that the ACLU are actively working against your rights because they defend something or someone that you don't like.

So maybe what I should ask is really this:

Who has an agenda?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 4, 2004, 9:42 pm

I believe in my God, but I agree that churches should not be tax exempt, they should pay taxes just like everyone and everything else.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 4, 2004, 11:09 pm

Drolgin Steingrinder wrote:You're still not answering why the hell your opinion on the tax exemption matters.

All you are saying is that the ACLU are bad for arguing that one church should get the same benefits as other churches (at least, that's all I can get from this), which seems to indicate that your issues aren't with tax exemption but with fringe religion.

Please, feel free to correct me. I do want to understand what it is you're trying to get across.

Ill answer it for you DUMB ASS!!! Because he is a taxpayer his voice carries as much weight as yours.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » June 4, 2004, 11:19 pm

Cartalas wrote:
Drolgin Steingrinder wrote:You're still not answering why the hell your opinion on the tax exemption matters.

All you are saying is that the ACLU are bad for arguing that one church should get the same benefits as other churches (at least, that's all I can get from this), which seems to indicate that your issues aren't with tax exemption but with fringe religion.

Please, feel free to correct me. I do want to understand what it is you're trying to get across.
Ill answer it for you DUMB ASS!!! Because he is a taxpayer his voice carries as much weight as yours.

The question is what is the relevance to the argument at point...wtf does taxpayer status have to do with the arguement?...lol...do you actually read before you type?

Wildly throwing out inane diatribe totally unrelated to the arguement will not suffice...

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 4, 2004, 11:26 pm

Arborealus wrote:
Cartalas wrote:
Drolgin Steingrinder wrote:You're still not answering why the hell your opinion on the tax exemption matters.

All you are saying is that the ACLU are bad for arguing that one church should get the same benefits as other churches (at least, that's all I can get from this), which seems to indicate that your issues aren't with tax exemption but with fringe religion.

Please, feel free to correct me. I do want to understand what it is you're trying to get across.
Ill answer it for you DUMB ASS!!! Because he is a taxpayer his voice carries as much weight as yours.
The question is what is the relevance to the argument at point...wtf does taxpayer status have to do with the arguement?...lol...do you actually read before you type?

Wildly throwing out inane diatribe totally unrelated to the arguement will not suffice...

Jesus Christ are you that fucking dumb too? A taxpayer in this country has a vote if he wants to vote for a group of people to change the way Tax laws are writtten then so be it. Now that the tax law is not a issue to hae the ACLU protect that right is Mute.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » June 4, 2004, 11:27 pm

Mid was answering sylvus, he just did it a few posts later.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » June 4, 2004, 11:31 pm

Cartalas wrote:
Arborealus wrote:
Cartalas wrote:
Drolgin Steingrinder wrote:You're still not answering why the hell your opinion on the tax exemption matters.

All you are saying is that the ACLU are bad for arguing that one church should get the same benefits as other churches (at least, that's all I can get from this), which seems to indicate that your issues aren't with tax exemption but with fringe religion.

Please, feel free to correct me. I do want to understand what it is you're trying to get across.
Ill answer it for you DUMB ASS!!! Because he is a taxpayer his voice carries as much weight as yours.
The question is what is the relevance to the argument at point...wtf does taxpayer status have to do with the arguement?...lol...do you actually read before you type?

Wildly throwing out inane diatribe totally unrelated to the arguement will not suffice...
Jesus Christ are you that fucking dumb too? A taxpayer in this country has a vote if he wants to vote for a group of people to change the way Tax laws are writtten then so be it. Now that the tax law is not a issue to hae the ACLU protect that right is Mute.

You should really understand an argument before entering into it...And make an effort to construct sentences that actually mean something in english...that is horrible nonsense you have written and is in no way germain to the question at hand...

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 5, 2004, 2:00 am

Sionistic wrote:Mid was answering sylvus, he just did it a few posts later.

Thank you Sion. hehe

Acies · Post by **Acies** » June 5, 2004, 6:34 am

Cartalas wrote:
Drolgin Steingrinder wrote:You're still not answering why the hell your opinion on the tax exemption matters.

All you are saying is that the ACLU are bad for arguing that one church should get the same benefits as other churches (at least, that's all I can get from this), which seems to indicate that your issues aren't with tax exemption but with fringe religion.

Please, feel free to correct me. I do want to understand what it is you're trying to get across.
Ill answer it for you DUMB ASS!!! Because he is a taxpayer his voice carries as much weight as yours.

Hate to interject, but isn't Droglin a resident of Sweeden?

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » June 5, 2004, 6:48 am

1. I agree with all of the ACLU's positions quoted earlier. My only agenda is to be free to live a happy life. The ACLU's primary agenda is to protect my abilities to do that. Thank god for the ACLU.

2. Cart, it's "moot", not "mute". As in, "Because the prisoner died of natural causes, the question of his death row appeal has become moot."

Siji · Post by **Siji** » June 5, 2004, 11:39 am

/yawn

It's not even entertaining anymore watching Midnyte make an ass of himself. It's too damn common.

Alfan · Post by **Alfan** » June 5, 2004, 3:19 pm

The first amendment hinges on the "clear and present danger" test. During the late '60s this was rewritten to say that the government can only restrict speech when it advocates the use of violence directed toward inciting imminent and likely lawless action.

Does "death to the Jews" fall under this? I think so and apparently so did the ACLU.

It's rather murky when the first amendment will be held up. Skogie, Illinois found this out the hard way when they tried to bar a Nazi rally in their town (which was full of holocaust survivors). Basically, the courts decided that, "any shock effect must be attributed to the content of the ideas expressed. Public expression of ideas may not not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers."