Arguing over whether black people should be enslaved or Jews should be gassed aren't political arguments with sound reasons on both sides. In which case it's

Arguing over whether black people should be enslaved or Jews should be gassed aren't political arguments with sound reasons on both sides. In which case it's a good thing Larrikin has a well defined definition of "political arguments with sound reasons" we can use in legislation. Snark aside, this post steps over and then directly back into the "who determines what's acceptable speech?" problem. Few will disagree with your extreme example, but your extreme example isn't what people are worried about. To hell with the people who actually advocate nazi ideology - I'm a lot more worried about what the overreaction to their stupidity will bring, that overreaction being a much more clear and present danger.