Yes, it is true. It is questionable from a freedom of speech standpoint, but it has to do with our nation's history, we are obviously even more sensitive when neo-nazis try to gain strength by making up lies.
It's not unusual to charge fees (or require permits/security) to hold a rally or protest...I don't like the practice -- but it is fairly common -- although the rules are set out ahead of time. But even that's moot here...the 'protest' was cancelled. They're proposing to charge him for just threatening to burn books and for a security for a protest that wasn't held.
That was an unfortunate typo. That sentence should have said "wouldn't." As far as security costs go, I think the government needs to just lump it. Security expenses are socialized. You don't pay more for police because you live in a high-crime neighborhood, because you commit more crimes than average, or because you are the victim of more crimes than average. What you pay is not related to your usage. Same with fire departments and other such services. That's how it goes. I wouldn't worry about a repeat anyway. This guy somehow managed to catch lightning in a bottle with this stunt, like Crazy Bands. Someone somewhere will manage to do it again, but it's pure luck; people can't just manufacture these things. So, the same tax-payers are not likely to get hit again, and instigators can't reasonably pull a stunt like this maliciously without getting charged for some crime (like Balloon Boy). And, just because something can lead to corruption absolutely means you should get rid of it. Perhaps you can try to write a court decision very narrowly to justify suppressing this guy's speech but not someone else's. You would have to be a more creative person than I am, however, to figure out a way to set a court precedent like that that isn't ripe for abuse.
