I draw a distinction between how I try to conduct myself (and, by extension, how I think society should conduct itself), and how I think a government should conduct itself. Any common overlap, while it may theoretically draw from the same core personal beliefs, is more of a coincidence in practice, imo.

I do the same thing. I don’t apply every possible way I conduct myself to how I think the government should regulate people’s actions, but when it comes to Nazism, I specifically believe the government should intervene, not because I personally wouldn’t do what they’re doing, but because their actions are observably, categorically harmful to society.

Yes, I think that society should not socially tolerate any of these behaviors

I think that society should take an active position to socially oppose them

but I don’t believe that a government should take action

So you think society should oppose them, but when an institution to represent the will of society has the power to oppose them, you now no longer believe it’s justified to oppose them. You’re contradicting yourself.

unless the well-being of an individual is actively under threat.

Any furtherance of a Nazi agenda puts every individual in a free society under threat by its very nature. If you allow a Nazi to spread their rhetoric, you increase the likelihood of an actual fascist regime happening that harms millions, if not billions.

We fine people for speeding all the time even if they don’t kill someone in a car crash, because we know that if more people are speeding, the likelihood of a car crash will increase, and that is obviously undesirable if your goal is to preserve human life.

We should do everything we can to prevent Nazis from gaining any power, whether through political office or social relevance, because we know that when they are allowed to do so, the likelihood of a fascist regime existing that is harmful to the preservation of human life grows.

but all of your examples seem to simply a be a difference of opinion (no matter how abhorrent and unpalatable an opinion may be). I don’t believe that one should be legally punished for a difference of opinion.

My opinion is that we should nuke X country and kill all of its citizens. I will spread this message, attempt to gain support for it, and hopefully get to a point where a member of the movement can gain political power that allows them to launch those nukes. Should I be allowed to do so, or should I only be stopped once I’ve already gained the power to launch those nukes, and have my finger over the button? After all, it’s just a difference of opinion.

Opinions can be harmful, not just because they can cause legitimate mental harm to those in the immediate vicinity on the receiving end of that rhetoric, but also because they can lead to harmful outcomes, that would otherwise not exist had the opinion not been allowed to spread.

The only one that may have some legal ground, in my opinion, as I currently understand your examples, is

Supporting dictatorship, authoritarianism, or totalitarianism as a concept or goal

If you support censoring/imprisoning those who hold that belief, then you support doing so to Nazis. If you don’t support doing so to Nazis, then you don’t know what Nazis do, or stand for.

This is yet another example of you holding contradictory views, where in one case you’re okay with the thing being stopped, but the moment someone with the “Nazi” label does those same things, you begin to drop your support for actually doing anything meaningful to prevent the ideology from spreading.