While I understand the thinking behind, "Such ideas are so offensive and evil, they should not be allowed to be published here", any such rule is a very dangerous precedent. It is, quite plainly and simply, censorship.
There are lots of social, political, and religious ideas that I disagree with. In some cases I think them simply unworkable or misguided, but there are plenty of cases where I think they are actively evil. Should every idea that I think is evil be banned?
If you're a Democrat, do you think anything pro-Republican should be banned? Or vice versa if you're a Republican. At various times and places Christians have censored Muslims, atheists have censored Christians, etc, etc.
If you're saying, "Hey, there's a big difference between routine political disagreements and something truly, unquestionably evil, like racism" ... Where do you draw the line? How evil does something have to be for censorship to be legitimate? And the most important question of all: Who decides?
Before World War 2, Winston Churchill tried to warn the British people against the dangers of Nazism, but the government controlled the radio stations and wouldn't let him on, because his ideas were too controversial and dangerous. http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/how-the-bbc-censored-churchills-speeches-against-appeasement/
Just a few days ago a U.S. senator wrote an article for a major American newspaper in which he called for criminal prosecution of anyone who disagrees with him about global warming, on the grounds that they are engaging in fraud and conspiracy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fossil-fuel-industrys-campaign-to-mislead-the-american-people/2015/05/29/04a2c448-0574-11e5-8bda-c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html)
It's a very short slippery slope.
If you don't want to answer a question because you don't want to help someone spread his vile propaganda, don't answer. But please, don't call for censorship.