No. I do not believe in free speech. It allows for hate groups to exist. Any hate ideologies such as Nazism, racism, sexism, etc in their purest form (not the bastardized versions) should be punished. We send terrorists to Guantonomo Bay, solitary confinement indefinitely for many of them. That's what would be done to those sorts of people. There aren't many people like it thankfully, but they deserve no platform to spread their idealogies and must be stopped at the source. 

well didn't black people complain about black zombies in RE6? I see no difference here.

There will always be someone hating on video games.

Just be neutral and remain gamers and kill all you want to kill in FPS games

The thing I find funny about this is its the same as the 'Right' (hate these terms) who always state the 'Left' is always offended etc...

yet all I see online is the 'Right' moaning or trying to use 'Fake News' to push there agenda..

I actually hate the internet at the moment.

It's not all Trumps fault but he is a large part of this.

that went way off topic, good on the developers for standing there ground.

This gave me a LOL.

Anywho, the real Nazis are dead. It ended in the 1940s. Acting like Nazis actually exist today outside of some ignorant fringe group is stupid.

Further you go left, closer you get to the right? I assume you're referring to the horseshoe idea then.

Fair enough.. Though I'd counter with a few key points -

For one, why focus on the negative? Free speech will inevitably bring out some horrible speech, but it will also bring out some great speech that might have otherwise been suppressed. Hell, I believe we probably wouldn't have many of the technologies, religions, and theories, and philosophical concepts we have today if not for the free exchange of ideas.

Second, this "supression of hate groups" sounds nice in theory, though I'd aruge that attempting them to silence them through force or threats would only serve to boost their cause and give them more power, as they'd be able to claim victimhood by pointing to these attempts of silencing them.

Additionally, how do you decide who makes these decisions of who can say what? Who decides what speech is tolerable and what isn't? And what makes them qualified? Do they have some sort of agenda of their own that might make them want to suppress certain speech? What makes these people in power so special, and the keepers of information/morality?

And again, the suppresion of free speech IS ironically a sort of Nazism/Fascism, so those attempting to silence it would ironcally sort of BECOME what they're trying to silence in some ways.. Authority figures and governments are just as capable of hate - who's to say they can't abuse this power to merely silence OTHER forms of hate (or worse, ideas they falsely VIEW as hate) while enforcing their own? They're still only human after all..

The whole practice, of placing such empasis and importance on mere words and ideas, sets and extremely bad precedent and sets the stage for a chaotic, oppressive society from my view, full of an extrememly angry and repressed masses of people.

Oh we're really gonna disagree on this. I'm against that because depending on who's the people in power or arbiter that could easily lead to a totalitarian state. it could be abused too easily. Also, "hate groups" will exist regardless of what you do. You can migate their overall influence by countering their arguments/moves with reason and logic. You're not trying to convince them that they are wrong but rather show to everyone how foolish their ideas are. That's fairly easy to do when there's alot of holes in their arguments. 

Allow anyone to speak openly and freely. That way it's much easier to track any persons of interest with troubling ideas versus them just remaining quiet and trying to change things behind the scenes.  Suppressing open speech doesn't stop the spreading of ideas because you can't watch everyone all the time. They'll still talk behind closed doors. If you try to control that, it will lead to authortarism and you won't stop what you were aiming for. The reason why a lot of hate groups have died off or weakened into insignificance is because people have been challenging their ideas for a long time. 

Horseshoe theory is one that I very much believe in, as I've seen many similarities in the far right and far left. The further to either extreme you go, the more similar these people act, and actual ideas begin to give way to violent/suppressive characteristics and tactics at all costs. This video explains it very well. The main difference, as this professor puts it, distiled down to its absolute simpliest form - "In the far right Fascist imperial regime, a man is shot by the authorities at dawn for the crime of stealing an apple of the STATE. In the Communist, hyper Socialist dictatorship, a man is shot at dawn for stealing an apple of THE PEOPLE." The common theme is "as the horseshoe ends, YOU stop mattering. Only the role you play in 'The People' or 'The State' matters."

I think a lot of this "TRUMP/suppoters are NAZIS" stuff is projection, as these people see a lot of themselves, or at least of what they support, on the opposite end of the spectrum.

This is why I've always stressed Libertarianism/Individualism over hardcore left vs right or Authoritarianism.

There is no Nazis left only Right wing. If people want to be extreme right wing, let them, as long as they aint hurting anybody. Far right, far left, who really gives a shit

Except there aren't any nazis alive today and by the same logic, pretty much ANY army in past history you can think of including those that are depicted gloriously on some big budget movies, deserve to be hated.
I've always thought it kind of strange that people's emotional response to mass atrocities seem to be proportional to how recent said atrocities were committed and when something happens very long ago it's like, fun and nice and cool to hear about in a candid way.

Example: The Roman Empire, Who gets pissed off at people depicting the Roman Empire in a nice way? No one, There are even games that kind of praise that civilization and their armies. But we all know the Roman Empire was particularly cruel and they have murdered on such a huge scale and in so horrible ways that they deserve to be hated just as nazis are. There's even a theme park in France "Le Parc Asterix" centered on a comic fictional Gaul character that lived in those times and the Romans are just nice guys that granted, try to invade the village of Asterix but never really appear bad or evil, just an army of clumsy almost sympathetic guys that you kind of feel sorry for cause they fail at invading that village...

So, were nazis scum on the face of the earth? Hell yeah, they are, but are they the only ones? Hell no. So for all I care they can make games where you kick their ass or EVEN you play the nazi that kicks the so called "good" guys' ass, it's ONLY a game and in Star Wars games for instance, you can even be the bad guy. No big deal, as long as you know it's only a game and you know the difference between good and evil. But judging by how most people get upset at nazism while at the same time not giving the same kind of hatred to pretty much every past army and civilizations that sooner or later were inevitably guilty of atrocities too, Kind of makes no sense to me.

EDIT: Oh and to the OP: The very nature of making a poll is to give at least two options so there is a "choice" you can make, just saying.