comment: >
  
  And what do their views have to do with your experience? 
  Does the product start to work differently?
context: Firstly, if no material harm is done these things aren't illegal in the USA.  You can't paint a swastika over the sickle and hammer if it's someone else's property that has them displayed, but you can paint it if you have the rights to paint anything in that location.  You can certainly make a cookbook for human meat (the cannibal cookbook is available not only in hardcover, but now in paperback.
  You cannot incite immediate violence of course, but on face you seem to be arguing for change to what amounts the unchanged status quo.
  Then...if you extend this to just not responding to things that you don't like that itself is a massive limitation on expression.  The swastika itself is a statement against the status quo - a response to something already being said.  Yet...you'd allow that response but then want us to stop after that?  How does this work?  A pride parade is a response in some ways to bigotry expressed by others.  Should we not have pride parades because hatred was first uttered by the homophobes? >
  
  Of course, I never meant it as someone else or even public property. And yes. I fully agree with a ban on true incitement of violence. 
  I don't want to stop people from responding and making a statement against anything else. But I don't think people should face repercussions beyond statements (which are hardly a reprocussions) for statements of their own. >
  
  So....I should keep working with the nazi even though I don't want to, shouldn't tell my friends but....it's OK to put up a peace sign as a retort? >
  
  
  I don't mean only punishments imposed by the government, but punishments
   society imposes on its members as well. And that change in personal 
  relationships can not be considered punishment.
  
  Is this not a double standard? You are saying that people should be able to to make offensive speech, but that other people should not be able to respond to it. 
  The concept of free speech includes the right of association (i.e. who you hang out with, who you work with, etc). If one person is allowed to hire their Nazi friends, then the same right necessarily applies to the reverse. In other words I have the right to decline to work with or hire nazis. >
  
  I don't think they should not be able to respond to it. But I don't think they should be able to restrict opportunities for such people on an impersonal level and that they can not be discriminated against based on their views on unrelated issues like they can not be discriminated against based on race or gender. >
  
  
  Do your worst and as long as there was no material harm you should be punished neither by the government nor by society.
  
  This sounds great but it depends how we define material harm. Technically, if I wave a knife around in a bar and say I'm going to stab everyone, I'm not causing any material harm. Yet my threats could certainly cause psychological harm, even if I never act on them. If I try to convince someone else to kill themselves, I am not doing anything to directly harm them, but I still contribute to their potential harm. There are a lot of cases where you are technically not harming people but still leads to real bad outcomes. 
  What would you say to these cases? >
  
  If your action has a probability to cause material harm or will lead to harm in the future (like damaging the dam near the village) then it's not a crime against morality, just like blackmail or conspiracy to commit a crime. >
  
  Like 7 of your listed things right at the start of your post are material harm.
  What kind of harm do you mean? Physical injury? >
  
  If it's your copy of the Quran or your flag, then you do only harm your own property, which is normally do not considered to be a material harm. >
  
  Material harm can absolutely mean self inflicted. If you want to move your goalposts and start redefining words then you should make a clear edit to your post, and award a delta accordingly. >
  
  I do not redefine words. I may use the wrong definition at the beginning, but we can agree that damaging your own property (especially small ones, like mass-produced books or flags) is not a crime as it not inflicts harm on others. >
  
  There doesn't need to be harm inflicted on others for something to be a crime, suicide and drug use are both self inflicted. >
  
  And they both fell in the crimes against morality category. >
  
  No they don't. >
  
  Suicide is not a crime in most places >
  
  What do you mean by "punished"?
  All of the things you listed are 100% legal (as I believe they should be).
  But in terms of "societal" punishment -- does anyone really owe you anything? Like, you could walk around with a giant swastika tattooed on your forehead, but it would be really hard to make friends, get a job, or even get people to talk to you. 
  You have complete freedom to have a swastika tattoo, etc. But everyone else has the freedom to ignore you and shoot you dirty looks. >
  
  They absolutely can, and I'd be one of the people who makes sure to noticeably snort walking nearby this person.
  But do you think this person deserves to be ousted from work/denied service at the shop/get his car vandalized? >
  
  Ousted from work - Well, I don't really see how you could be hired with a giant swastika tattoo in the first place. But if it's disrupting the workplace, making customers and other employees uncomfortable, and losing the company business/money, I think it would be justifiable to fire that person.
  Denied service at a shop - Again, if they're disrupting a business and losing the shop money, I think it's justifiable for the shop-owner to ask them to leave, or at least put on a hat.
  Get his car vandalized - No, because I don't think we should all go around committing crimes against people we don't like. 
  But to your bigger point, isn't "snorting at someone on the street" a societal punishment? Sure, it might not be as big as getting fired or denied service, but it's still an act of shunning/disapproval. Where do you draw the line? >
  
  If you serve as a representative of the company in some capacity, then your look is directly related to work, but if you are a night shift janitor, should a swastika serve as a reason for not accepting one to work?
  And yes, actively forcing others to not serve people you don't like is societal punishment — perhaps the shop-owner in this case doesn't do anything wrong, but people who force him to make a such choice do.
  Snorting is not a punishment as it doesn't restrict the opportunities of a person in any way, it's a statement. >
  
  
  If you serve as a representative of the company in some capacity, then your look is directly related to work, but if you are a night shift janitor, should a swastika serve as a reason for not accepting one to work?
  
  Maybe.  Most people, especially people whose job it is to protect the public image of the company they work for/own, don't want to be associated with Nazis.  They've gotten a pretty bad reputation over the course of the last couple decades.  So when Earl the Nazi and Night Janitor at the Coca-Cola Bottling Plant appears in public wearing his Coca-Cola branded janitor uniform and proudly flashing his newly inked swastika neck tattoo - it's probably in the best interest of Coca-Cola to ask that Earl find a new place of employment. >
  
  But the such effect on the public image is impossible without people deciding to punish companies for association with people they don't like (yes, you are talking about Nazis, but it's clearly not only Nazis who can suffer from such a scheme — gays being perhaps the most obvious example).
  And so the question is why do people think, they get to decide what others can do if it's not bringing any material harm to others. >
  
  But nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. I personally don’t like nazis and I’d prefer to spend money on companies and businesses that match my values, so if I see one place where nazis seem comfortable and at home and another where they aren’t I know where im taking my business. But again it’s not like im forcing them to hire nazis or non-Nazis. I just spend my money where I think it’s best spent >
  
  People are allowed to call you an assholr for the things you do. The government shouldn't punish you for being an asshole but that doesn't mean you should face no consequences. >
  
  And why there should be consequences if the subject of my actions does not directly relate to my work/membership in the organization or just in anything that isn't part of your personal relationship with me? >
  
  Because I, and most people, are likely to spend less money on content created by assholes, so people are working with assholes have a vested interest in not working with those assholes anymore. >
  
  So you are the person who chooses to impose repercussions for one's actions that aren't connected with you. 
  Why? Why do you believe that people alike to you should define what the other person does when it's not related to you or causes harm? >
  
  If a music artist I like turns out to express nazi opinions, I will likely no longer enjoy the act of listening to their music. Same for if the nazi is the CEO of a tech company, every time I use their product I would think of that and it would ruin the experience. 
  It's not about punishment, it's about the effect their views have on my experience. If their company or record label or whatever chooses to fire them because their presence makes their products sell worse, that's not my fault. Nor is the company doing anything wrong.