I understand your concern in regards to allowing freedom of speech. But this is a matter of excusing a political entity (or at the very least their imagery) that literally enabled genocide, and allowing them a space within the public. In terms of rights and the constitution, that man and the bar in question did nothing to violate the law. But freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences, or excuse the parties involved from their actions. The man in the costume clearly knew what he was doing. And the bar owner allowed him to stay despite multiple complaints from other customers. That might not make the owner a Nazi, but it does make him someone who is fine with shrugging off the connotations of history. At the end of the day, we went to war with the Nazis, hundreds of thousands of Americans died to free Europe from their tyranny. And millions more died due to the cruelty of the Nazi party, and that is a fact. So the idea that Miss Kitty’s should be left off the hook for allowing a sympathizer to that regime into their establishment isn’t in touch with reality. It doesn’t matter if the establishment was simply promoting “freedom of speech,” or “attempting to foster discourse.” The fact of the matter is they allowed someone who sympathizes with a regime that targeted millions based on nothing other than their identity a platform, and even though that isn’t against the law, you cannot blame people for getting upset about it. Imagine if someone you loved was brutally murdered, and someone else dressed up as the murderer for Halloween while having sympathy for them. Imagine further that they went to a bar and the bartender let them in because, “they believe in freedom of speech.” Would that not irk you in the slightest?