If you join the neo-nazis (or any similarly unpopular group) and posts that on facebook, you will lose your job, your customers will shun you, and if you are sufficiently famous the media will make sure it stays on your record forever. You will also have no platform and no way to gather like-minded people. Whatever social media you use will ban you or seek to limit your voice constantly and in imaginative ways (cf shadowban). Whatever hosting service you use to communicate with your group will shut you down unannounced when you are of sufficient size, forcing you to move, bleeding members all the while. Paypal will refuse to process your donations.
At some point somebody will dig through your past writings/interviews and misconstrue you as a pedophile.
At the end of the day you will be just another destitute crackpot that nobody pays attention to. Why bother with the jackboots?
To be fair, doxing is a problem and -- especially as a group -- people can get awfully close to that line of the law. This does need to be addressed, though I'm not sure how.
If the government outsources the jackbooting to private sector, does it stamp your face less hard? What if I design a governing structure that's distributed between a small elected 'government' branch and a large, permanent network of corporations?
Richard Spencer is still on Twitter, and still definitely has an audience—though the video of him being attacked is now very well known. Alex Jones has the President's ear. Steve Bannon is an advisor to the President with access to classified information. The President is, well, the President, despite plenty of material that could be and was used to accuse him as a pedophile. (I realize this is pedantically incorrect—I also realize the general public doesn't really care.)
Milo fared less well, but apparently appearing to advocate pederasty was a bridge too far even for many of his fans. Directing a harassment mob towards a celebrity was a bridge too far for Twitter, despite years of spewing the same not-exacty-PC views.
And espousing supposedly PC views isn't exactly safe either. Remember that time Anita Sarkeesian received multiple bomb threats for threatening to say unpopular words in public? What was THAT about, and why weren't the freedom lovers jumping to her defense in droves?
On a tangential note, this constant demand to focus on other causes whenever somebody points out something's wrong is a big part why most activism fail. Every cause gets piggybacked on by a hundred 'greater' causes that it has to expend all its resources to support. Every member has to agree with all one hundred or they can gtfo. At the end of the day nobody gets anything done, but at least you can show your friends on Facebook how virtuous you are.
It's almost as if hardly anyone cares about free speech beyond using it as a shield against meaningful opposition.
> At the end of the day nobody gets anything done, but at least you can show your friends on Facebook how virtuous you are.
For such a useless and thus non-threatening group, they sure get a lot of blowback. Let's be real—I couldn't have possibly cared less what Alex Jones had to say until people started parroting his unsubstantiated conspiracy theories en masse.
And there's something way deeper going on with fierce opposition to social justice movements than a burning desire to prevent people from continuing to be wrong on the Internet.
> In sociology, deviance describes an action or behavior that violates social norms, including a formally enacted rule (e.g., crime), as well as informal violations of social norms (e.g., rejecting folkways and mores). [...] Norms are rules and expectations by which members of society are conventionally guided. Deviance is an absence of conformity to these norms. Social norms differ from culture to culture. [...]
Note that the opposite of deviance in this context would be "normality", the Gaussian bell.
Howard S. Becker  is one key contributor to this topic. His outstanding book "Outsiders" (1963) is one of the best food for thought I've ever read.
Deviance being such a key concept in pretty much every human group/society/civilization and even fictional stories, it's generally agreed upon that it's a characteristic of our species' social interactions (whether biological or psychological or both), more innate than acquired (since we all evolved towards these behaviors, probably back in immemorial times when it had a survival purpose).
Moving on to political science, specifically law-making and state 'architecture' (i.e. Constitutional Law, that which creates Institutions and ultimately defines a Regime such as Democracy or Dictatorship), most schools of thought in 'free'/'democratic' countries are very conscious of the intricacies of protecting minorities and their opinions/rights. It is an integral part of the praxis of making law and you will find such fail-safe mechanisms even in authoritarian regimes (notoriously in China where, believe it or not, citizens have much local power on paper). Obviously in the real world, politics and corruption shift all of this, from the netherland of 'toxic deviance' to the promised land of 'hot-buzz-bait cause'.
Where I personally think political science is mistaken is precisely in labelling regimes into 3-4-5 neat categories; imho every country has some of each kind and should be rated on a scale for each kind of regime. It's the idea that democracy is never an absolute but a freaking wide spectrum, and that you can live in a 'weak state of democracy' combined with a 'normally high state of surveillance or authoritarianism'. And maybe a 'touch of dictatorship' emanating from the top exec office (usually PM, President) or top spiritual order (e.g. theocracy). Currently in the West, given the oligarchic configuration of the elite and the relatively high degree of corruption and low level of public debate, I wouldn't rate our countries very high on the democratic scale (the People has little power if any); freedom still is at an all-time high in the grander movement of history; however the development of surveillance technologies opens a wide door towards authoritarianism (also unlocked by an oligarchic rule).
I have one faith in the fact that big data is also possibly the solution to aggregating public opinion in ways that previous generations could only dream of (if we care to make the machine intelligence necessary for that), and that we also now (well, soon) have the capability to tailor a regime to each and every individual if need be (there's something to be said about a huge victory for freedom if we ever get to that, basically "make your own --pizza-- regime").
There is still the matter of circle-jerking once we're all free to group with like-minded individuals; but that one may prove to be a hard problem for humans.