Yes that's my point.Perhaps I misunderstood, so I'll convey my understanding of your post:
You said a Nazi symbol in graffiti is worse than art in graffiti, right? The fundamental difference between the two is the message: one is positive or neutral and the other is hateful. So hateful graffiti would be a different (more serious) crime than artful graffiti due to the included hateful message.
I don't agree that this follows, also there isn't that much censorship of Nazi behaviour in Europe. In Germany yes but I'm not aware of much elsewhere.Is any of that a misunderstanding of your post? This implies to me that if the same two pieces of graffiti were instead painted on a canvas and hung in an art gallery, one should still be censored -- as in my understanding, it would be in many European countries.
I used my example of on a pub/church to highlight the difference but regardless of where it is put a hateful symbol is a hateful symbol. The real debate comes with what constitutes a hateful symbol e.g. is taking offence enough? How much should author intent matter? etcPerhaps the question I need to ask you is: worse how/in what sense? If the answer is that it is worse because it is posted on a synagogue, then I think you misread the post you were responding to.