The issue with this sign raises a complex question about the freedom of speech ( and the freedom of self-expression as a part of it). This freedom isnt absolute, but where should limits be drawn?
Basically, forbidding ideas (and exterior signs of them) is a stupid thing, it only leads to the opposite result.
The USMB Klan has already decided that it should be taken down. They have no qualms on a free speech basis because the only free speech they recognise is their own spew.
Maybe, but that is a two way road. The same way as a BLM sign is protected, a sign of say EDL should be protected too.
You place both organisations on the same pedestal and that is a fallacy. The edl (disbanded I think) was a pure hate organisation dedicated to making the UK white. BLM just wants fair play. There is no comparison.
That doesnt really matter in this case. I am sure the EDL supporters can find a number of reasons why this organization is 'good' and why it is better than BLM. It is all a subjective matter.
Letting subjective opinions decide what idea is right or wrong is a slippery slope. Either you support the freedom of expression or not.
The BBC follows this policy and it is a mistake. There is a political spectrum from right to left that all hold valid opinions and should be heard.
Outside of that there are organisations that just spread fear and hate. They should not enjoy that privilege.
If you are an Asian and your neighbour puts up a "Paki out" banner then that is something that cant be tolerated.
Isis flags would not be tolerated so why should the edl ?