The problem as I see it is that folk here are confused between what they may not like to see expressed or may not agree with and the method by which they don't have to see it - is achieved. As if the end justifies the means.

They also seem confused that folk who point out that the freedom to express a view how one wishes to - is a freedom worth fighting for - are in some way insisting that others should be forced into being exposed to what is being expressed.

I am not asking anyone to like it or agree with it. You can judge its worth and chose to ignore it, have nothing to do with it or to argue with it. It is simply to accept that what I (and Wolfgang) accept as our right to express our personal judgement - is never denied to others. It might not be to your taste - so you don't have to eat it.

The problems in 1930s Germany where less to do with some promoting and inciting hatred as it was this same group, by the use of force, by controlling the media and using any other method - of preventing any alternative view from being expressed. That is the big danger and why the principle of defending someone's right to say what may not be to your taste, will always be so vital.