Why aren't hate groups banned in the U.S.?

[Associate Justice PiT]

So many normal countries (like Canada and Germany) ban hate groups. Why hasn't the U.S. banned them?

Who decides what's a 'hate group'?

This is the answer. The FBI tracks violent/potentially violent groups like the KKK and various separatist militias in the west. But there's no government agency that looks at, say, the Westboro Baptist Church.

Allowing the government to designate hate groups opens up a can of worms. Could a Democratic president decide Focus on the Family is a hate group? Could a Republican president buy into right-wing nonsense about Black Lives Matter being a radical organization?

     You are absolutely right that this would become a political football with groups being labeled as such for specious reasons, and anyone who thinks otherwise is far too optimistic about the intentions of political entities. Banning opposition organizations as hate groups is exactly the kind of thing that the First Amendment was conceived to prevent, because it is too ripe for abuse.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Germany and Austria outlaw hate groups because of the great harm that those groups have done in the past. The Allies chose to outlaw Nazism in every possible manifestation from the the Hitler salute to the swastika and stock Nazi phrases.  Of course Nazis did murder six million Jews, among others. Contemporary Germans find Nazism an embarrassment.

Germany is not remotely a free country.

Germans (excluding klarxet) would disagree, but because it has refugees it much unfree.

No its not because of having refugees. Its because of the lack of free speech. The German government (like the UK government and other European governments) suppress free speech of right wing dissidents in various ways but law enforcement is used in two ways. Firstly there is the direct application of 'hate speech' laws, with the definition of 'hate speech' growing ever broader over time.

Then there is the use of licensed violence, threats and abuse against right wing dissident groups by so called 'antifa' or 'anti-fascist' groups who are permitted to carry out these behaviours against dissident groups without serious legal repercussions in a way that would not be tolerated by the state if it were directed at a non dissident political group. For example see the way that the dissident AfD gets treated by these groups and consider whether the German state would tolerate for a second the non dissident FPD or CDU getting the same treatment.

Using these kind of 'license' for political violence is a way of the German state directing political violence against dissidents whilst giving the appearance of not being responsible. Since these 'anti-fascist' type groups (just like dissident groups they attack) will in all cases be heavily infiltrated by state assets and in most cases be run by them this fiction of the government not being responsible for the anti-dissident violence has not even an element of truth to it.

Its the same in Britain, France, Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Australia etc etc. This tactic of authorities 'licensing' and using state sponsored and state controlled violence has also been on full display recently in parts of the US both during and since the election. In particular it has been seen in Chicago and the state of California (San Jose, Berkeley etc)

The hilarious part is that most of the state controlled robots taking part in this anti-dissident violence, harassments and threats in all these places will usually think of themselves as opponents of the establishment.

     While I agree that the limitations on speech are a big problem in Germany, I'm not sure about this notion that these governments are encouraging violence to suppress dissident movements. Being quite close to what happened in Berkeley, I haven't seen evidence that they supported the violent outburst. I have however seen the university repeatedly condemn left-wing intimidation tactics. Now that might all be a smokescreen for a secret plan to let anarchists violently suppress conservatives, but such an allegation requires direct evidence for me to entertain.

[Associate Justice PiT]

cuz muh first amendment

As someone who loves nearly everything I've encountered about your continent, it's nothing short of baffling why so many Europeans can't wrap their minds around why the First Amendment is so important.

     Especially considering the problems that Europe has suffered at the hands of both left-wing and right-wing authoritarian regimes, I would think that they would be more wary of authoritarian policies.