The purpose of this study is to investigate how the argumentation for the freedom of speech versus the right to safety was presented when these rights came in conflict with each other when a neo-Nazi organization was allowed to co-arrange Almedalen 2017. The material consists of press statements, debate articles and news articles where the arguments of four key agents connected to Almedalsveckan 2017 were collected. In order to fulfill the purpose of the study, the argumentation is analyzed by answering three research questions: How did each agent present their argument? How did the argumentation rely on current law? How did the agents rely on the others’ rights claim? The argumentation is analyzed qualitatively through a normative theory in order to investigate how the claims were made for each right. The agents that claim freedom of speech are Region Gotland and the police. The agents that claim the right to safety are RFSL and Funktionsrätt Sverige together with the JAG Association. The argumentation is categorized thematically for each agent and every category is analyzed separately. The results show that both sides used emotionally charged arguments or affective language and both sides may be considered as lacking in concretization regarding the meaning of their main arguments. Both sides clearly relied on current law by either mentioning laws explicitly or implicitly. All of the agents made some statement about the other key agent’s position or responsibility. Both sides can be considered as having valid right claims by referring to intrinsic values and current law. In the end, Region Gotland and the police have the right to determine who is allowed to co-arrange Almedalen and can therefor decide which claimed rights that is prioritized in the value hierarchy. Furthermore, the study shows that each conflict of rights needs to be valued individually as the circumstances, consequences and claims are crucial for the determination of the hierarchy. For future research, I recommend investigating how the public opinion considers allowing or limiting neo-Nazi’s freedom of opinions, as well as investigating how the Swedish praxis regarding the application and restriction of freedom of opinions for neo-Nazi organizations and parties is carried.