Is it "Politically Correct"...

You can get into all sorts of debates about what a National Socialist was or is. It's easier just to call him scum.

But (assuming the organisation itself is capable of being prosecuted (in English law, I think they would have to be a legal person - I don't know how it works in the States)) surely the organisation itself has to be prosecuted at some point. If the KKK's official spokesperson incites violence against a racial group, and is prosecuted and then replaced as spokesperson, by someone new, who repeats the incitement, how many times should the incitement continue, before the KKK itself is prosecuted for what its spokesperson says ?The racist organisation itself has to be susceptible to legal process, just as racist individuals do.

Yeah, I was forgetting that in the US, incitement to racial hatred is not a criminal offence, as it is in the UK.Worthwhile emphasising that this does not make it illegal here to have racist views, or to be a member of an organisation which has racist views as part of its world view - but the people and organisations can be prosecuted, if what they say, do or publish is held to be intended to, or likely to, stir up racial hatred.Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.

Mine was a reply to your message 8, in which you said "Authorities should only be able to deal with individuals who break the law" - I believe they should be able to deal with associations of individuals also, when the associations are held to have broken the law.

Indeed, but if the Freemasons were a white supremacist movement and their actions were intended to or likely to incite racial hatred, then they could indeed be prosecuted over here as an organisation, for that incitement. The actions of their members would be good evidence at the hearing.

If Black Lives Matter were active in England, and there was evidence that the organisation incited racial hatred, then yes, they would likely be prosecuted.