The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is now largely symbolic too, as there is little immediate threat of the reinstitution of slavery. In part , law carries out this symbolic or moral code function for society. Laws like the 13th Amendment "enshrine" the values and conclusions that we have learned from historical experience, to help future generations not forget.
It is pretty remarkable how today's living generation of Americans, Bush and everybody, have "forgotten" the historical lessons from a few short decades ago. For example, the Attorney General doesn't seem to have a clue about the content of the Fourth Amendment.
Anyway, like the 13th Amendment, a law singling out KKK and Nazi speech as an exception to the general rule of freedom of speech ,might help to preserve the lessons of history on Nazism and Jim Crow.
The First Amendment itself was not litigated from 1793 until 1919. Perhaps because in the "context" of the interim years, it was not needed, if speech freedom was not much abridged. And in the first cases, the Supreme Court did not even uphold freedom of speech. But eventually, all the Rip Van Winkles woke up . Witness the militant defense of freedom of speech on this list. Perhaps having enshrined it in the Constitution made its revival quicker.
Similarly, we might want to enshrine in law the memory of how uniquely bad fascism was, so that future generations will "remember" more quickly should the danger arise again. Otherwise , their history lessons will be from things like Reagan visiting Bitsburg and the like.
Charles
Marvin Gandall
Again, it depends on what means are being used to try and stop the far right.
I think it's accurate to describe hate legislation as mostly symbolic. It's easily circumvented; the group simply has to change its name. It's largely inconsequential in that it is imposed when there is no real danger of fascism in order to satisfy larger voting blocs who feel threatened or are otherwise offended by these cranks. In periods of crisis, when fascism can grow, it's in reaction to the growth of mass movements on the left. In these circumstances, the bourgeois state has no real interest in banning fascism, which it sees as an insurance policy against them. In general, I think it's an illusion for the left to think it can win and benefit from purely "anti-fascist" legislation. At best, it will get legislation against "extremists" who "preach hate" and "subscribe to violence" which could be used equally, if need be, against itself as well as the right.