>It's entirely legal - and often appropriate - for someone with shitty views to be persecuted. People who march in neo-Nazi rallies with swastikas should see non-governmental consequences for their actions.
Who decides what counts as shitty views? Is it decided solely based off your political preference? How do you feel about people who march in pro-socialim rallies facing see non-governmental consequences for their actions, during the mccarthy era?
Ostracizing and later persecuting Jews was supported by large parts of the population in 1930's Germany and Eastern Europe. According to your logic, that made it OK too then?
> I heard anti-communism was pretty popular back in the day. Does that mean such actions should be endorsed/allowed?
Sure, why not? If you (or even your entire neighborhood) don't want to have a garden party with an open communist, that's your right. I similarly have the right to say "you're a dick for doing that". If I'm a civil rights activist, I have a right to endorse the Montgomery bus boycott, too.
> So your only objection to that was the government interventions?
With a fairly wide definition of "government interventions", yes. The Comics Code is something I'd consider intervention; "we'll self-regulate under threat of external regulation" is something I consider government intervention and a First Amendment violation in this case. The same for McCarthy's driving a fellow senator to suicide via abuse of power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_C._Hunt).
Who decides what counts as shitty views? Is it decided solely based off your political preference? How do you feel about people who march in pro-socialim rallies facing see non-governmental consequences for their actions, during the mccarthy era?