If you're actually in favor of legally banning the swastika, just think for a bit.
Okay, the swastika is associated with the Nazis--among histories biggest ass hats. It's also associated with Jainism. In fact, it's been associated with Jainism for just South of three thousand years. Jainism is the most peaceful religion that the Earth has ever known.
Alright, well, we're giving the swastika to the Nazis. So, let's still ban it.
Are we gonna ban the hammer and sickle? Hitler murdered 6.5 million Jews. Is that why the swastika should be banned? Stalin murdered more Ukrainians than Hitler murdered among Jews. That's just the Ukrainians. He murdered millions more within Soviet controlled territories. Are we okay with the hammer and sickle because the victims were mostly white? Well, a lot of leftists are telling us that Ashkenazi Jews qualify as white too, whether or not they agree. Mao murdered about 50 million people in "The Great Leap Forward." A man was forced to kill and bury his son for stealing a bowl of rice lest the rest of his family be murdered under that regime. Are we gonna ban the hammer and sickle?
Suppose we are.
Okay, are you on board with taking a magic marker to religious texts? Should the passage in the Hadith about the rocks and trees crying out to Muslims to kill Jews be inked out? Should the passages in religious texts that relegate women as chattel be inked out by the government? Should the state have control over what can be peached upon every pulpit in every church, in every synagogue, and in every mosque?
Do you agree with Austria legally attacking a woman for pointing out that Muhammad had sex with a nine year-old girl? Do you agree with France jailing a comedian for making Jew jokes after the Charlie Hebdo shooting? Do you agree with the UK fining and threatening a man with prison time for training a pug to do a Nazi salute as a joke?
Banning a symbol stops people from being bad? A Nazi will still be a Nazi with or without a flag, correct? They will pick up other symbols. Then what? Ban those? And what will be the punishment? I have a hard time seeing the moral high ground in hurting someone for possession of a piece of fabric.
Shall we instead punish them for the ideas and views they hold in their heads? Because that's really what we want right? You want to wipe the ideas and views away. Ultimately, even if we could wipe out all symbols and writings and everything else, what we want can only really be accomplished by getting rid of the people with those ideas. Otherwise they will just keep making more symbols.
It's not hard to see that banning a symbol is more Nazi than not banning it. I don't think it's even that close. The Nazis banned stuff much more then those that opposed the Nazis. So I would ask myself "would a Nazi do this?" And if the answer is "yes" I re-think. There has to be a better way.
Furthermore, by suppressing people you risk empowering them. Maybe you don't know a lot about real Nazis but they were big on playing the victim.
The other thing the Nazis were big on was doing stuff "for the greater good." That was their #1 thing. It's captured nicely in their most prominent slogan "Deutschland Uber Alles" or "Germany above all."
Though it may seem counter-intuitive, what makes non-Nazis non-Nazi is their rejection of collectivist thinking like "the greater good" in favor of individual rights, including the right to wave symbols and even the right to be obnoxious. We all want happy prosperous societies, and we can and will punish actual evil, but we must understand that the path to good comes by not doing what the Nazis did and not embracing their philosophy.
I personally reject notions about the "greater good" in favor of individual good. By protecting the individual good we are far more likely to achieve prosperous and humane community than by slipping down the same authoritarian path others have gone down.