Changes

Other supporters compared the Muslim plans to construct a mosque to the demand by the [[Nazi Party|National Socialist Party of America]] (NSPA) to march through the village of Skokie, Illinois (home to many [[Holocaust]] survivors), in 1977. Despite the controversial nature of the march and overwhelming public opposition to it, the Supreme Court agreed with the ACLU's defense of the NSPA that their actions were covered by the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. 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]] (NSPA) to march through the village of Skokie, Illinois (home to many [[Holocaust]] survivors), in 1977. Despite the controversial nature of the march and overwhelming public opposition to it, the Supreme Court agreed with the ACLU's defense of the NSPA that their actions were covered by the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. These supporters, however, fail to note several key differences between these two situations:<ref name="jihadwatch"></ref>

*The NSPA's planned march was 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 planned march was 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 Center would constitute exactly this type of "speech."

==References==

==References==

<references />

<references />