Invoking the KKK is the First Amendment equivalent of Godwin's Law.
We let idiots have their stupid rallies because it's not the government's job to decide who gets to speak, and because the laws you would like to use against the KKK or WBC end up getting used against Malcolm X or Occupy protestors at a different time or in a different part of the country.
And just to remind everyone, the reason we're worried about chilling effects and anonymous speech is that you don't want the first person to write anything challenging corrupt power structures to get indicted with "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" charges backstopped by prolific surveillance, or have their house burned down by ideological opponents who use government powers to discover dissidents and are subsequently never prosecuted. Not only does that allow the injustice of corrupt power retaliating against activists for good, there is a real risk that the retaliation will be an effective deterrent to future activists.
I mean, you're being a little pedantic. Presumably, Americans expect the Constitution and all of our "fancy laws" to protect them from living in a police state.
Presumably Americans don't care that much about Internet surveillance, given the representatives they have elected and the big giant "meh" that has come everytime an NSA or FBI story about aforementioned surveillance has been leaked.
Which is more risky for police state purposes, a PRISM system that requires at least corporate legal review for specific individuals, or a system that would tap into all Internet traffic?
Now, which of those have we known about for a longer time?
