With all of the violence occurring in this country, one has to ask: What can be done to address it? Too often, people are prosecuted after a crime has been committed. What is missing is the deterrent effect of a law that would prohibit or reduce the number of folks who create the problem.

I’m not going to refer to the laws of North Dakota or Minnesota or any individual state. This is a national problem that needs to be addressed head on. This means a focus on federal laws.

18 U.S. Code § 2102 – Definitions

(a) As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.

(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot,” or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot,” includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts

In March 2016, presidential candidate Donald Trump basically urged the crowd at his rally in Louisville, Ky., to rough up some protesters. Three who were indeed roughed up brought suit in federal court against Trump and his campaign. His words — “get them out” and “throw them out” — started the ball rolling. And roll it, did as the three were pushed, slugged and hustled out the door.

Trump’s lawyers moved to dismiss the protestors’ lawsuit on the grounds that he didn’t intend for his supporters to use force.

Federal Judge David J. Hale rejected his free-speech defense. He ruled that the case against Trump and his supporters could proceed. He found sufficient facts supporting allegations that the protesters’ injuries were a “direct and proximate result” of Trump’s actions. He further noted that the Supreme Court has ruled out constitutional protections for speech that incites violence.

The judge observed, “While the words themselves are repulsive, they are relevant to show the atmosphere in which the alleged events occurred.”

Trump’s lawyers (he picks lawyers who rarely win) argued that the protesters assumed the risk of injury when they decided to protest.

The judge summarized that every person has a duty to every other person to use care to prevent foreseeable injury. He said, “Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that their harm was foreseeable and that Trump had a duty to prevent it.”

To be clear, the judge has not yet made a final determination that Trump violated the law, but there was sufficient evidence for the case to move forward for trial.

I cite this case to show that a complaint filed by citizens or by criminal prosecutors can proceed and can produce results.

When the hate groups verbally attack Jews, flaunt the Nazi flag, bring torches, weapons including guns and other instruments of hate; wave the Confederate flag of the defeated South — it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude bad things are going to happen because good people aren’t going to accept that activity.

Communities (Fargo, are you listening?) can enact measures that may well cut down or eliminate protest problems. A protest is being contemplated for Fargo in October. Because the local media have given the neo-Nazi promoter so much air time, he just might be able to pull it off.

May I suggest that no permit be issued unless the following conditions are met: No weapons of any kind or implements that could be used as weapons; no helmets or military-type body armor of any type; no swastikas or other Nazi memorabilia; no baiting of the Jewish community; no racial slurring.

The harm in using these things I’ve listed is foreseeable, and both the city and the protesters have a duty to prevent it.

Just a suggestion. Freedom of speech is one thing. Freedom to do harm is quite another. Amen.