It's not a binary argument in the way you are trying to frame it. The correct side is peaceful, non-violent protest against any perceived and real civil or moral threats of an individual's choosing. Suppression of speech, and especially violent suppression of speech, is an enormous danger to free society.
No. In most states criminal harrassment, (somewhat like assault) requires a credible threat to you or your family's safety. Shouting racial epithets at a person, while disgusting and offensive, does not threaten their safety. I'd guess that you're thinking that this sort of thing is incitement to violence. For example when some nutbar hears all this and then goes and acts on it. But I disagree that in most all of these cases that is a proper argument. We don't hold BLM legally responsible for the deaths of the officers in Dallas despite the fact that they were directly calling for "pigs to fry like bacon", etc. We don't hold anyone else legally responsible for calling Scalise "Nazi scum" after that nutbar shot him at baseball practice. Your right to call me out as a Nazi pig if you so choose is inextricably tied to these douchbags right to spout awful disgusting and offensive things. Mein Kampf is available through your local library as is The Essential Ghandi. That is the way it needs to be in a free and open society.
