Much ado about nothing. Hitler and most of the Nazis are dead, and the rest are growing old in Argentina or at their secret base in Antarctica, or wherever... I can see how it's offensive, but I can see how it's history as well. You can't erase history until at least 1 or 2 generations have grown up without knowing it. Give it 75 or 100 years and 9/11 will seem as real as "Remember the Maine!" and people will be in awe as to how we saw the Patriot Act as reasonable. Nazis will seem about as scary as the Huns.
I think everyone has their own personal lines as far as what is useful free speech and what is destructive. We don't get much say in what's permitted and what's restricted for the most part. Free speech is important though, and I don't know quite why some free speech seems to be OK and other free speech is verboten. For example, in the US, we actually spend government money (or more accurately taxpayer money) to publicly display "art" depicting Jesus in various compromising sexual positions. Yet, if you talk of burning a Koran or that Mohammed was a pedophile (by today's standards) you get a call from the POTUS telling you to stop. It's all very confusing to me. It would seem favoring one over the other breeds division, entitlement, disenfranchisement and animosity - the opposite of what it's theoretically trying to protect.
From what I've read in the Federalist Papers, the concept of free speech (in the USA) was originally conceived as relating to having the freedom to say unflattering things about the government. It didn't have anything to do with expressing your originality, feelings, or musings on subjects outside of governance or law. In the case of slander, common law of the day allowed a person to legally settle defamation, rumor and false testament in a field by blade or by bullet if desired. That is to say, the government let people settle their personal issues with free speech between individuals outside the judicial system. It wasn't felt that the business of regulating personal free speech was a tenable arena for government to manage due to the fluid and malleable nature of personal free speech and opinion.
Were this the case today, perhaps there would be less of the vitriolic rhetoric we hear so much about lately in the news. At the very least, a good number of those with big mouths and no tail to back it up might be a bit less spontaneous in voicing their beliefs at every chance. Maybe we'd even have a more polite society, or a society that thought a bit more before it pumped out Nazi games, offensive art or malicious rumor.