Actually, this case is fascinating. It does raise some universal philosophical questions.
How far, exactly, does freedom of speech extend?
What is the nature of justice?
My initial take on the article was this was an outstanding example of authentic democracy in real action. Laws are certainly important, a foundation of civilization, but far, far more important is a trial by jury. A jury has the right, nay the responsibility, to shoot the finger to any law on the books when it feels justice has not been done. In this case, although it didn't make it to the courtroom, the assembled crowd used their perogative to ensure a kind of democratic justice was done. I want to agree with Weezy and Lex on this one. Why do we need the cops and courts when two guys give each other black eyes outside a bar? Or in this case, the member of a hate group getting an ass whuppin' behind the woodshed for behaviour that is bang out of order by any societal norm. In many ways, this was far better (and shorter term) justice than the courts could deliver.
But then I think about the racially motivated violence, certainly not something of the Jim Crow past either, Rodney King is only the most famous of an all too common an occurence. And not just police violence. Where does one draw the line? I think of the people who have applauded the use of torture in the GWoT, despite its obvious barbarism (and it doesn't get results either). I think about the fascists in the Southern Cone and South Africa who decided who the "undesirables" were. These are some very, very deep questions.
therealUT's very gripping story is about 1,000 light years on the other end of the spectrum with little to no applicability in this case, but I salute him and his subordinates restraint with their prisoner. He and his people found themselves in what is truly a character defining situation, one few of us ever get to experience, and they came through bravely and virtuous.