To get this straight, you are stating that you believe it is in your interest for certain other people who live in the same society as you to be prohibited from attempting to further their own interests by freely and meaningfully participating in the public political debate to the same degree that you and others in your society are able.
Do you think that's going to end well? How do you expect those people to feel about you? There is a very good reason why societies have protected the right to political speech, and it is to prevent the inevitable conflict that arises when some people in society feel that the rest of society is preventing them from attempting to further their own interests in the same capacity that other groups are able.
In the case of political speech that you consider Nazi-style, your rationale is that you believe it will make an event you consider to be unlikely become even less likely. You believe it will have a sufficiently large influence on the likelihood to make it worth bearing the consequences of telling people in your society that they cannot participate in the public political debate as freely and meaningfully as others. Why do you believe it would make that event less likely? And why do you believe it would reduce it enough to justify the risk?
Do you think that's going to end well? How do you expect those people to feel about you? There is a very good reason why societies have protected the right to political speech, and it is to prevent the inevitable conflict that arises when some people in society feel that the rest of society is preventing them from attempting to further their own interests in the same capacity that other groups are able.
In the case of political speech that you consider Nazi-style, your rationale is that you believe it will make an event you consider to be unlikely become even less likely. You believe it will have a sufficiently large influence on the likelihood to make it worth bearing the consequences of telling people in your society that they cannot participate in the public political debate as freely and meaningfully as others. Why do you believe it would make that event less likely? And why do you believe it would reduce it enough to justify the risk?