Yes, that sounds true. What is your point?
On what basis does that sound true to you?
Expressing political views does not entail the use of violence in any situation I can imagine. Some views may encourage or even incite violence (in the latter case, it is not protected speech), but I can't think of any situation in which expressing one's views literally entails violence.
I can, it would a political view which requires itself, by its own internal logic, to be expressed through violent intimidation.
I have this impression that you are acquainted with logical expressions. Otherwise, I would not harp on the use of "entails". If you meant it much, much more liberally than its usual meaning, please let me know.
I meant "entails" indeed.
"I support A."
A => B
Therefor, "I support B."
Although perhaps the "entails" should indeed be interpreted slightly liberally, in the sense that if you could find a single nazi march out of all the ones which occur where they weren't violent in or in the margin of, then the "entails" would fail even if it could still be true in 99.999% of cases or something. So consider the above argument (with the "entails") as an approximation of a statistical argument.
[1] As far as I know, although there were verbal confrontations Friday night, there was no physical violence. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
I've seen at least one video where they were beating people with those torches. But even if they didn't then your conclusion wouldn't follow, since it's not always during the march itself that they are violent (many times they manage to hold themselves in in front of the cameras and cops) but afterwards.
Take the homeless guy that they beat to death around here lately. This didn't occur during their march but later that night. Four members of "Nation" (a Belgian neo-nazi group) went out in the city together after the march, and somewhere came across some homeless guy and decided to beat him to death.
And before you argue "but they could've done that anywhere at any time, march or no march" then yes, they
could but they
don't (tend to). The nazi marches for "expressing their free speech" only exists in your head, in their heads they're coming out in force performing an intimidation ritual whereby they are asserting their "dominance over the streets". When unopposed[*] it merely serves to affirm their belief that they "own" the streets and emboldens them in going further with violent activities than otherwise. Hence the higher-than-normal incidence of hate crimes surrounding such events (as for example that homeless guy).
* the Tuba playing (as someone posted in the thread) would hence be an example of an effective counter-protest. But fetishizing it, as I'm sure liberals are doing by now, would be pointless since it required probably the lamest neo-nazi group in history - I'd like to see the first person playing a Tuba when they're running towards you with baseball bats, for example. The traditional counter-protest method is hence a blockade, and the general strategic idea is to basically
break their self-confidence in actually putting their ideas in practice.
