The way I usually see it formulated is less about discourse and more about action. The ones to have their rights abrogated are those who try to trespass on the rights of others. It's a principle similar to jailing a kidnapper.
There's a difference between a kidnapper and a kidnapper apologist, the latter of whom most would probably object to jailing, and many, would object to censoring.
There is, similarly, a distinction between someone who advocates terrible beliefs and someone actively employed in implimenting those beliefs at a policy or action-level. For example, relatively few people would object to the claim that
Charles Murray is a massive racist. However, that doesn't entail that we must censor
The Bell Curve to maintain a free and open society.
There is a sense of the term action where the distinction between words and acts becomes unclear. However, that doesn't entail we treat any formulation of an idea as equivalent to that idea's implementation.
Perhaps you can enlighten me. I am familiar with the quoted arguement paradox but it isint what I am trying to make, I understand some things cant go unchallenged or unhindered we cant let people go around shouting for example. "I am going to kill all of X people" and not respond. But I am saying when we start labeling ANYBODY we disagree with as nazi's or anything else it creates problems. And human psychology is not 10% rational so the may make an emotional decision. which may be a bad one.
1. I was responding to Septimus. They used the argument by name and I quoted them.
2. We're literally in a thread about white supremacists though.
This is a thing that happens(warning: swastikas, but it's also German public broadcasting, so I assume it's going to be fine for most), so arguing about whether the Nazis we're talking about aren't actually Nazis isn't a great look. What non-Nazis do you think are being intentionally accused of being Nazis exactly?
3. Why are emotional decisions bad and rational ones good? More to the point, you seem to assume the difference favors your specific views, but this really only follows because you've created a chain of suppositions about things that could happen without examining the totality of such possibilities or actually citing serious psychology as to why yours is more grounded.
4. You might want to reference it. It's a much more compelling argument against censorship than
literally quoting actual Nazi apologists. 
