I want to point out something interesting about your argument. You say:
“First we ban Nazis, then we ban anybody who disagrees with banning Nazies, then you ban everybody who disagrees with you. And they YOU ARE THE FASCIST who controls any thought and speech.”
And no one is talking about doing that. The rationale behind banning Nazi speech is that speech rights are used for organizing and outreach and a host of other things. If you share Nazi content, you have a nonzero chance that someone will see it and adopt Nazi views. And though most people react strongly against it, over time, their reactions diminish and they begin to tolerate more Nazi speech. And when Nazis reach a critical mass, they take away other people’s rights, because that is what Nazi ideology is. Totalitarianism is not a minor sort of idea, it is mutually compatible with everyone’s liberty. So you have actually laid out a rationale for banning Nazi speech, because that is all we have to ban. The sympathizers are fine. Wring your hands and worry about the rights of Nazis. Go for it. But Nazi content needs to be subject to special scrutiny, because of the Paradox of Tolerance articulated by Popper: if we are tolerant of speech that advocates intolerance, eventually, the intolerant people will win and the tolerant society goes away. We are watching this transpire right now. There weren’t any Nazi marches like this 2 years ago. There weren’t ballrooms full of Republicans Sieg Heiling on video. It’s insane. We should realize that it’s kind of a major shift.