I think parent’s point is that it doesn’t (but it should if it wants to survive)

Because neither are numerous enough so as to constitute a legitimate threat.

If we started seeing local governments having openly KKK or neo-Nazi majorities, the freedom of speech balance would substantially alter.

First amendment rights in the US are typically circumscribed only via a requirement to show actual, existential harm.

The problem is that historically this has been the case only when it was essentially too late.

Death by a thousand cuts:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_normality

That feels like fuzzy, post-hoc rationalization.

What about when we consider the opposite? How many insignificant-in-the-moment-seeming changes never effect any sort of larger change?

We fought a war against the Nazis, with millions dead, to end fascism. We'd (hopefully) do it again if it were necessary.

It's really off the mark to criticize the US for not having done enough against Nazis! Forget banning, we invaded and killed those fuckers.

This is literal Gestapo as we learned it during history class in 1990s Austria:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-race-portland-valo...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo#Suppression_of_resista...

Hey man, I don't like Trump either.

But we're nowhere close to the Nazi party in the US.

See also: Red Scare, 1950s, court cases related to.

> Why doesn't the US ban the Nazi party or the KKK if it really cares about the Paradox of tolerance?

Ideas versus actions and objects.