Thank you for your thought out and well written response. You bring up important points to consider.

To be honest, I don't have any answers to where the limit of tolerable speech should be that aren't arbitrary or contradictory. There's a lot of nuance in this topic that I feel gets lost in most discussions.

For example, in a vacuum I agree that Nazi propaganda should not be tolerated or protected speech. Especially clear and immediate advocation for the physical harm of people. But on the other hand, there have been times in history where advocating for violence has resulted in overall positive social change (such as the American and Haitian revolutions). Does the distinction of tolerability get drawn at advocating for the violent extermination of a political regime vs a group of people? How do you make a distinction between the two that is satisfactory for any situation, past, present, and future?

If you take Nazi propaganda in insolation I think every reasonable person would support banning it (including myself). With the advantage of hindsight I think there are lots of topics/beliefs where that would be reasonable and appropriate. Where it gets concerning is making rules that stop intolerable speech now, yet won't squash positive (but subversive) new ideas that aren't part of the social conciousness yet. If history is any indicator we all have beliefs that will be considered intolerable in the future. Do you have to draw that line on a case by case basis? And if so, who should have the authority to do that?

Maybe I'm being unintentionally obtuse, but if there can't be rules made that are equally valid in hindsight and future unknown situations, it's better to err on the side of unrestricted speech. I don't want to unintentionally prevent future posivitve changes out of fear of Nazis and other hate-groups.

That feels like a line that we should all be able to agree upon, and yet there are still many who bafflingly say that we should respect Nazi’s ability to spout Nazi propaganda and recruit online.

As long as you have the ability to NOT interact with them, via blocking or simply ignoring them, what's the problem?

But I think it’s entirely safe to say that when what you’re discussing is the eradication of groups or even “just” individuals, you’re on the wrong side of that threshold, plain and simple.

And here is a big problem - currently any and all questioning of trans and gender ideology is shouted down as "transphobic" and "wanting to eradicate trans people" by the far left. Should that all be banned? Are we essentially just going "everything the far left say is the truth so everything else is banned"?

Just because one group kick up a stink and say that someone else is calling for their genocide, when they're clearly not, it doesn't mean that you should ban that entire group.