No you cannot. You cannot advocate genocide. That is incitement. Genocide is fundamental to Nazism. Therefore, Nazism is inherent incitement.
By waving the Nazi flag and Seig Heil-ing, or saying "Jews will not replace us", or threatening to shoot people because they lost an election, that "speech" is calling for ethnic cleansing, violence, and genocide. The symbols and "speech" they use are tantamount to incitement, which is something SCOTUS has said is not protected speech. It's literally a call to action.
That's why no one who punches Nazis faces charges for it.
Incitement is not constitutionally protected.
You are right in that some instances of incitement are punishment, but your understanding is much too vague.
"Seig Heil," waving the Nazi flag, or saying "Jews will not replace us" are not examples of illegal incitement. It has to be specifically urging a person or group to commit an illegal act--none of those fit the definition. It has to be a call for imminent unlawful action. Calling for some action in the indefinite future is not illegal incitement.
You did not see any of those Nazis at the UV protest prosecuted for their speech and they were all chanting those slogans and carrying flags. Calling for genocide is mere advocacy because it is impossible to accomplish and at some indefinite future time.
Also, there has to be some illegal act that resulted from the incitement or some imminent act about to happen.
Check out the Supreme Court case of National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie. The Nazis wanted to march through Skokie wearing their uniforms in a town with Jewish Holocaust survivors who threatened violence against the marchers. The court ruled the city could not deny the permit.
There is no such thing as "inherent incitement."
A person can be charged with assault if they hit a Nazi unless he was defending himself from imminent violence.
"Clarence Brandenburg, 48, an officer in the Ku Klux Klan, left, and Richard Hanna, 21, admitted member of the American Nazi Party, pose for a picture following their arrests, Aug. 8, 1964, Cincinnati, Ohio. Brandenburg was arrested in connection with a KKK meeting in which he made anti-Semitic and anti-black statements and advocated for the possibility of "revengeance." The Supreme Court threw out his conviction and issued a new test: Advocacy could be punished only "where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio.
According to your interpretation, Brandenburg could be convicted for "anti-Semitic and anti-black statements and advocated for the possibility of "revengeance."
"In Hess v. Indiana (1973), the Court applied Brandenburg and said that before an individual’s speech could fall under the unprotected category of incitement to imminent lawless action, the speech must lead to “imminent disorder.”"
