It did happen, but in Chicago. Whether it happened in Skokie or not, the courts ruled that they had the right to do it, as they have many other cases, including Westboro Baptist.
The Courts have (time and again) decided that holding a demonstration that may offend people is a constitutionally-protected right.
However, the Courts have ruled that fighting words constitute words that are intended to incite hatred or violence from their targets or that tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage, and your original post called for people to "(E)ngage them, bait them, expose them".
That is the textbook definition of fighting words.
In the NSPA demonstration, the town of Skokie refused to issue a permit because it believed (correctly) that Nazis marching in a township heavily populated by Holocaust survivors and their families would be offensive. The Court found that correctly to be wrong. You can't deny a permit and deny people both the right to peacefully assemble and the right to free speech because others may find their presence and symbolism offensive.
The fighting words doctrine did not apply there simply because the march had not happened. Had the Nazis marched down Skokie shouting offensive things about Jews and carrying offensive signs that could lead to violence because of their nature after they secured the permit, and been arrested by Skokie authorities, they would not be able to claim any sort of protection under the First Amendment.
That's the difference between Skokie and this. Just like there is no constitutionally-protected right to not be offended, there are no constitutional protections for those purposely seeking to precipitate physical or verbal confrontation by using words specifically intended for those purposes.