There's already hate-speech laws to address actual hate-speech. I'm still asking if it is a good idea for HOAs to dictate what politics may be openly supported and what politics are not welcome in the neighborhood. There's a lot more nuance here than simply using the most extreme possible case and basing all the rules around that case.

> Pride is not hate, despite modern recasting of homosexuality in scripture by conservative religions.

It's funny that you bring up religious positions :-)

I had pretty much the same conversation recently with a very religious person who was appalled to find out that Satanism isn't against the law, being a Satanist isn't against the law and openly worshipping Satan isn't against the law.

They pretty much said what you are saying:

Them: "But they do animal sacrifice!"

Me: "Yeah, that's not legal".

Them: "So Satanism must* be illegal then."*

Me: "No, you can worship whoever you want to; you just cannot torture animals while doing so. The torturing is illegal, the worshiping is not."

So yeah - proclamations that are in fact hate-speech will run afoul of the law. Political support is not. IOW, Hate speech is illegal, political support is not.

The problem you will often run into when carving out your legal exceptions (for example, saying support for Nazi(ism) is hate speech) is that where do you draw the line?

Okay, we agree - support for Nazis is hate speech.

How about support for a political group that is formally sympathetic to Nazis but is otherwise not active in that regard at all? Do you now move the line to include this case?

What if that group is only informally sympathetic to Nazis?

What if the group is neutral towards Nazis but some members are openly supportive of Nazis?

What if the group is simply neutral to Nazis?

What if the group is only neutral and refuses to issue any formal statement on Nazis, even when asked?

What if the group actually is against the Nazi policies, and formally states this position, but also doesn't think they are a large enough or viable enough threat to spend their time on?

What if the group is only loosely associated with a group which is loosely associated with a group that fulfills one of the above criteria?

At each point above your exceptions get muddier and muddier. At some point your rules will become, in practice, a whitelist of what politics are allowed (all the rest are disallowed).

Basing all rules on the most extreme example is the most reliable way for an authority to extend its power.

"But they are Nazis" is the new "Think of the children".

I didn't buy the "Think of the children" argument back when, and I'm not buying it now just because someone slapped some lipstick on it.