>

You're right, and I'm thankful to see that, regarding it not being a law. It is quoted on a PDF that is distributed to school administrators and teachers in Colorado, and the way it's written it seemed to be a law. I didn't look at it carefully enough. Thanks for pointing that out.  
I don't think it's fair to consider it harassment to misgender someone, if that's all you do, and you don't make a point of it, but rather refuse to use their preferred gender. It's a fine line, but there should be room for someone to reject another person's ideology. Modern gender theory is still developing, and much of it is still debatable--what's not debatable is that they, like all humans, deserve human dignity. But the details are even debated among trans-serving doctors and trans-theorists/academics.   
I do think there's truth to what the Canadian laws, but I jumped on the CO thing.  
I'll do more research, write something better that doesn't violate any rules, and repost in a month or so.
I’m not sure I understand why you believe that group is hostile to free speech as defined in US law. Could you elaborate? >

I have only met one GenZ liberal who agrees with me, that the free speech of Nazis must be defended if we are to preserve our own free speech.  
I am very political. I've worked on multiple campaigns, and I've led GenZ volunteers doing call center and texting work, as well as door knocking. So I've met many young people who are politically engaged. I had hoped that during or right after college their views would evolve, but many of them are in their mid-20s now and have maintained these beliefs.  
For context, I'm a millennial, myself. Mid-30s. >


GenZ liberals/leftists do not support free speech, as defined by the US constitution

Based on thousands of conversations with Gen Z liberals:
They do support free speech as defined by the U.S. Constitution. They just don't support free speech beyond that point.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees that Congress shall make no law abridging free speech. In other words, you can't be arrested for speech. The government can't fine you for speech.
And that's all it guarantees.
It doesn't say you shouldn't be fired from your job for having an unpopular opinion.
It doesn't say you shouldn't be banned from a website for having a political view that the majority of people on that website dislike.
It doesn't say you shouldn't be shunned by your entire community or that nuisance lawsuits shouldn't be filed against you or that people shouldn't keep blacklists of bad people and distribute them amongst their friends.
It just says "Congress shall make no law."
The right wing tends to believe there's a concept of free speech that should extend past the First Amendment. The left wing says: no, the First Amendment is all anyone should get. >


blacklists of bad people and distribute them amongst their friends.

Bad people like, say, Communists in Hollywood? >

Not sure if this is supposed to be a gotcha, but the problem with blacklisting communists in Hollywood isn’t that people decided to blacklist other people, it’s that they decided to do it for questionable reasons on questionable evidence. 
There are plenty of good reasons to blacklist somebody, and plenty of bad ones. It’s up to the individual which reasons they think are good or bad. That doesn’t mean we should just never blacklist anybody for any reason because of “freedom of speech.” >

The trouble is that "questionable" becomes subjective outside of criminal charges.  The McCarthyites thought they were doing a good and patriotic thing to destroy the influence of what they considered dangerous people. >


The McCarthyites thought they were doing a good and patriotic thing to destroy the influence of what they considered dangerous people.

Were they? >

I don't think so, but that's my subjective opinion.  Certainly Communists have done a lot of damage in history if we want to go looking for examples.
I just don't think they were right to blacklist people and destroy their careers for expressing a political opinion. >

Okay, but that's also just your subjective opinion...so are subjective opinions things we ought to care about and allow to guide or actions or not? >

I think that subjective opinions need to be treated with suspicion and to err on the side of caution when they affect other people. >

Okay, but then just arguing "things are subjective" is sort of odd. You'd need an actual substantive argument to be made about, say, this particular guy named Jake and his questionable tweets or something. The question "Should we blacklist Jake?" appears obviously dependent on whatever Jake, specifically, is doing. There are a thousand ways falling short of illegality for Jake to be a total jerk people don't want to work with. >

Again, how is that substantively different from people in the '50s being suspicious of Communists and publicly shaming them until their careers are destroyed? >

I think you should consider adding (as an edit) your evidence that GenZ leftists do not support free speech. Right now all you have is that when you argue that GenZ does not support free speech they call you an idiot. This sounds like them exercising their speech. You mention consistent anecdotal experience, but you don't actually provide any of them not supporting free speech. We really have very little to reply to. >

It's easiest to go with the extremes.  
They attest that Nazis do not have the right to speak freely. They will argue that their speech is too dangerous--that even if the speech doesn't incite violence, it will nonetheless create violence non-directly, and therefore, it cannot be tolerated.   
Another common example is deadnaming or misgendering transpeople. They will argue that this speech is violence, threatens lives, and therefore, it cannot be tolerated. >

Since your post got taken down for not including these I'll just reply briefly. 
The nazi point. The question is anyone seriously pushing for new government crackdowns on nazi speech? I haven't seen this. What I have seen is calls for social media companies to moderate it more severely. This in no way goes against what speech is protected by the us constitution. Boycotts and criticisms are speech themselves. If people think their are too many nazis on a platform they use they have every right to stop using it or call for the platform to kick the nazis out. If a bar I went starting having nazis every night I have the right to stop going or if I think the owners can be reasoned with I would talk to them. They have every right to refuse service to anyone making their other customers uncomfortable.
As for dead names I've not seen anyone calling for criminal prosecution. Using dead names or misgendering someone (even intentionally) is not a crime and I've not heard anyone actually calling for it to be. However, there are definitely discussions if intentionally and repeatedly deadnaming/misgendering someone falls under harassment. Just like with making unwanted sexual comments towards a coworker you won't be imprisoned but you can face professional, social, and civil consequences. >

Your post broke rule A, there's a comment from a mod on this. Basically you didn't explain your reasoning sufficiently
​
What you posted is not a law. It is the Code of Colorado Regulations for Colorado executive agencies. It is the operating rules for employees of Colorado's executive branch. It does not apply to private citizens. It is just workplace rules. So saying this is proof it is illegal to misgender someone is quiet a stretch. Even in this for (4) to constitute harassment it still needs to be shown that the behavior "is severe or pervasive conduct that creates an environment that is subjectively and objectively hostile, intimidating, or offensive on the basis of sexual orientation." before consequences are faced.
I've lived here for years and I'm not aware of any law that could land you in jail for misgendering someone. It is true that gender identity was recently included by law as part of a persons protected class, but that's not the same as criminal harrassment. Also religious exceptions to discrimination and harassment have pretty thoroughly struck down by the courts, so as of now for your original argument of "defined by the US constitution" it is not clear that including intentional misgendering as harassment violates the constitution. The current make up of the court could lead to this ruling but the current precedent does not.