comment: >
  
  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?
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.