While I do indeed disagree with the so-called 'neo-Nazi' mindset and find it greatly disturbing that they are monopolizing this issue, I think there is some important cultural/historical aspects to note here. As a great many of you are from the States, you probably consider it very normal to be able to discuss whatever you see fit however you see fit as long as no one is hurt.
In Germany, however, there are topics that are not allowed to be discussed without incurring great harm to your reputation, even if criticism is justified. Although these rules are not set in stone, you could get into a great deal of trouble for broaching certain subjects in public, which could greatly damage your reputation.
One of these topics, among others, is the subject of Dresden. If you speak up against Dresden, you are often labeled a 'neo-Nazi,' which I consider to be greatly unfair, since it was an error on the part of the Allies. Rather than bombing significant military targets, they misjudged the German populace and assumed that if they bombed civilians, it would break down German resolve. Thousands of people were massacred when it brought no tangible benefit to the Allied cause; in essence, it was at best a poor allocation of resources to no logical end.
The fact that it is highly discouraged to speak in such a way means that it is by default only the extreme right who is 'allowed' or rather has the 'guts' to talk about this because they have nothing to lose. This fact is dangerous, as it polarizes people who have no natural means of expression.
In the States, in contrast, people (even normal liberals and conservatives) are allowed to discuss matters like Iraq or Afghanistan, or the Alamo, the Civil War, or Vietnam or the Cold War or WHATEVER without fear of retribution, so you do not have a need for extremism. However, when people are forced into the position of having to assume blame for everything, even for Allied mistakes, lest one be branded a neo-Nazi, do not be shocked when the lines polarize.
Couple that fact with the situation in the former East Germany, which is one in which there is no real moral or structural foundation left in the wake of failed communism, where unemployment is going through the roof, where there is no end in sight, it is really no wonder why there is a great deal of disillusionment there. Result: extremism.
Furthermore, I'd like to add that while they mentioned there were some injured, it does not say WHO did the injuring. Ironically, often it is the anti-neo-Nazi demonstrators (many of whom tend to be left-wing extremists) who are just as violent, if not more so.
While we are turning our focus to a group of so-called neo-Nazis, we completely NEGLECT TO ADDRESS the FACT that recently these areas in the east have elected LEFT-WING EXTREMISTS. In fact, in some areas, Die Linke, which is the baby of the PDS (East German communist party) and KPD (the communist party before WWII), has gained between 15-30% or more of the popular vote.
So while you're celebrating the downfall of one neo-Nazi riot, please do not forget to turn your attention to even more dangerous, REAL threats, namely the far left - the far left is just as dangerous and pernicious as the far right. And rather than paying attention to this one symptom, perhaps it would be more prudent to analyze underlying CAUSES for such extremism in the first place.