Changes

<blockquote>'''Radical Jews have never bombed the West side of Manhattan nor killed 3000 Americans in the name of Judaism''' (their emphasis).<ref name="jihadwatch">[http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/islamic-supremacist-mega-mosque-like-skokie-nazi-march-legal-but-hurtful.html Islamic Supremacist Mosque]</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>'''Radical Jews have never bombed the West side of Manhattan nor killed 3000 Americans in the name of Judaism''' (their emphasis).<ref name="jihadwatch">[http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/islamic-supremacist-mega-mosque-like-skokie-nazi-march-legal-but-hurtful.html Islamic Supremacist Mosque]</ref></blockquote>

Other supporters compared the Muslim plans to construct a mosque to the demand by the National Socialist Party of America's (NSPA) to march through the village of Skokie, which, despite its controversial nature and overwhelming public opposition, the Supreme Court agreed with the ACLU's defense of the NSPA that their actions were covered by free speech, per the First Amendment. These supporters, however, fail to note several key differences between these two situations<ref name="jihadwatch"></ref>

Other supporters compared the Muslim plans to construct a mosque to the demand by the [[Nazi Party|National Socialist Party of America|]]'s (NSPA) to march through the village of Skokie, which, despite its controversial nature and overwhelming public opposition, the Supreme Court agreed with the ACLU's defense of the NSPA that their actions were covered by free speech, per the First Amendment. These supporters, however, fail to note several key differences between these two situations<ref name="jihadwatch"></ref>

* The NSPA's action were nothing more than a "disgusting publicity stunt" and a ''temporary'' action (a small group march for the city's center). This stands in sharp contrast to the ''construction'' of a mosque, a far more permanent and imposing structure.  

* The NSPA's action were nothing more than a "disgusting publicity stunt" and a ''temporary'' action (a small group march for the city's center). This stands in sharp contrast to the ''construction'' of a mosque, a far more permanent and imposing structure.  

* Although the First Amendment does protect many examples of free speech, the Supreme Court decided in ''Roth v United States'' that standards could be applied to obscenity or otherwise ruthlessly inflammatory speech. Some could argue, as many of the 9/11 families have done, that the construction of a mosque near the former World Trade Centers would constitute exactly this type of "speech."

* Although the First Amendment does protect many examples of free speech, the Supreme Court decided in ''Roth v United States'' that standards could be applied to obscenity or otherwise ruthlessly inflammatory speech. Some could argue, as many of the 9/11 families have done, that the construction of a mosque near the former World Trade Centers would constitute exactly this type of "speech."