>

Thank you for your comment! You seem very reasonable. However, I'd like to challenge you on one thing...  

I do not advocate for the deplatforming of anyone other than those who spread dangerous, hateful rhetoric, especially when directed at at-risk minority groups. There is no place for dangerous speech in a public square, and the more people who buy into the lie of accepting its presence as 'free speech', the more it becomes legitimized, acceptable, and the more danger these communities are in.

You state that you only support the de-platforming of people who spread dangerous rhetoric. If Leftists are in power, this means de-platforming Nazis and the KKK, which would definitely make the world a nicer place to live. HOWEVER, when Trump or someone like him is in charge, it could very easily mean that BLM and trans activists, maybe religious minorities and others won't have free speech.   
Any power you give a liberal government will be retained by a conservative (or fascist!) government when the pendulum swings, and they take over.   
Does this give you any pause at all?  
***  
I also want to ask, are you familiar with the legal dichotomy, "de facto" vs "de jure"? I think Twitter (and a few other sites, perhaps) are the de facto town square, and that whatever speech laws can be agreed to, should be applied there as if it were a spaced governed by the government.   
It is absolutely factual that this is not the law today, but I care less about the letter of the law (de jury) and more about reality (de facto). I want to preserve individual rights.  
But again... if you look at the edits I added to the post... I understand that freedom of speech does not and should not include freedom from the consequences of one's speech.   
***  
Finally, the mods of CMV removed this post from the feed. I asked for a clarification, but haven't received one, though it's only been an hour. But if this was motivated by their disagreement, perhaps it further my point (though I have no idea what their ages or political proclivities are). If the post was removed from the feed because of this, do you think that's reasonable? Obviously it's legal! I'm not looking to sue. My question is, is it wise?
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. >

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. >

It was distributed to teachers because they are employees of the executive branch. 
Also, if it is the Canadian law that it appears to be that you're referring to that also does not include misgendering in criminal harassment. It added gender identity to protected classes. Meaning that transgender people are protected from discrimination in areas of employment, housing, and education. It did add anti-trans speech to what is considered hate speech, but this would have to rise WAY above just misgendering. It also changed hate crimes sentencing to include anti-trans crimes, but you would have to have committed another crime for it to apply, so really does not apply to speech. Also the US constitution does not apply at all here.
I would be surprised if it is considered criminal harassment anywhere to intentionally misgender someone. >

That's not criminal harassment. That's workplace discrimination. They are not facing any criminal penalties. Even in the US its not settled this would be unconstitutional. There have long been standards in the US and Canada that employers can be sued over language that people can use with no penalties. So if you have a problem with this you either have an issue with harassment/discrimination laws in general or gender identity being considered a protected class. But if gender identity is a protected class then these cases are no more a threat to free speech than any other laws against discrimination and harassment in the workplace, school, and housing. Misgendering someone intentionally definitely creates a hostile work environment for them. 
​
Also nothing in this article indicates the owners had any strong beliefs. It was the manager (not the owner) who was accused of intentionally misgendering them and using other misogynistic language. Also, no one involved is Gen Z. >

So in your experience, these GenZ liberals want the government to infringe on the rights of others to speak? You havent really explained how they dont "support" free speech or what it means to "support" or "not support" it. Could you clarify? >


I am called anything from a secret Republican to Alt-Right to simply, an idiot.

How does this support the premise that "liberals/leftists" don't support free speech? Surely they're using it when they're insulting you and, based on the above, you support and want to defend that.
I think you're confusing acceptance of your beliefs with acceptance of free speech. Just because more and more people disagree with you doesn't mean that they're infringing on your right to speak. As noted above, they're using their Constitutional right to disagree and voice their own views. >

Dude, you took one sentence out of context. I never said that them calling me an idiot is an example of violating my free speech.
​
Obviously, calling me or anyone an idiot is indeed free speech. >

The context was a claim that X people don't like free speech and your only example is X people calling you an idiot. >

I thought my original post was pretty clear, but here you go:  
Examples of speech that GenZers have told me the government should not protect include misgendering and deadnaming, but also just general racist or otherwise bigoted speech. >

Maybe learn what protections the constitution actually grants? That should change your views >

I assume you mean to implicitly argue that while we are free to speak as we wish, we are not free from the consequences of our speech.
I agree with this, though the notion needs to be updated a bit for the internet age, as the internet transformed speech and expression profoundly.
Anyway, if that's your point, I'm well aware, and in fact, I agree.
I have a right to dismiss an employee who espouses Nazi rhetoric. But I don't have a right to have the Nazi arrested for expressing his views. >

Reddit choosing not to host certain content is their free speech. Go to another platform like parler or truth social if you want different content.
The example you give is bad, if a “nazi” calls for violence that’s incitement to imminent lawless action and is punished by law. >

The mainstream social media companies collectively make up the de facto townsquare. The path you're taking will eventually mean that while we have free speech, de jure, we do not have free speech, de facto. This is like saying, "theoretically, you have free speech, but in reality, you do not have free speech". 
​
Are you OK with that? Or are you not OK with it, but think I'm incorrect, regarding where this path leads? >

Businesses have a right to policy the content on their platforms. Just like the bar owner can ask you to leave. 
You can’t be advocating for free speech and refuse free speech to businesses.
They are the dominant platforms because they are also well moderated. As I said nothing prevents you from going to other social medias or even create your own.
You can’t have it only when it suits you.
And once again like everyone said, there’s no such thing as absolute free speech. The constitution does not apply to me refusing to let you post or say things in the public and private space. >

A bar owner does not govern what speech is acceptable for multiple nations—its occupancy is like 100 people, not hundred of millions. 
That scale doesn’t change anything for you?
If Musk turns out to be an Alt-Right troll as he has appeared to be so far, and he censors leftists and protects the Alt-Right, will you be consistent in this belief, or will you see it differently?
You’re right, in terms of your analysis of the law, though constitutional interpretation is more complicated, and the legal world’s dichotomous concept of de fact vs de jure will probably eventually come into play. Ultimately, I hope we will protect free speech on the internet, as if it were a public space. >

Again… people are free to speak; they are not free from the consequences of that speech. 
I take no issue with canceling people. Sometimes it’s not done fairly, but as a general rule, it’s totally fair to boycott and cancel folks. That is absolutely not a violation of free speech. >

There you go. >

But de-plattoforming folks is a violation of free speech... de facto, just not de jure.  
Do you see my point? Does it move you at all? >

Dude you are the one who keeps repeating himself and not looking at facts.
Twitter can remove you from its platform for not respecting the TOS, nothing prevents you from going elsewhere. Yes they are dominant but there exists alternatives. >

My guy, calling you an idiot or whatever is free speech
Are they calling for the government to imprison you? >

lol, yes, calling me an idiot is free speech. They are 100% free to do that all they like. But I am also free to analyze it, which is what this post is attempting. >

I don't really know how you expect to have your view challenged when you've already decided what your opposition believes. >

The claim I’m positing is, there’s a trend among the younger side of the American Left away from the support of individual rights, such as free speech. 
I should have used this word trend. That’s my actual claim. That public opinion is trending in this particular way, and that GenZ is leading the charge, 
That’s the view that I’d love to have refuted—I’d love to be reassured that what I’ve seen anecdotally is not the trend, or alternatively, I’m open to hearing arguments against free speech, especially nuanced ones, because I do believe that the internet age presents a need to update traditional free speech law.
But alas… I’ve concluded I didn’t formulate the post that well, and I’ll probably take another shot at it in a month or so. This crowd is pretty serious, which I love, so I’ll try a more thorough approach, with as much evidence as I can muster. >

Well I would like to take a crack at addressing your concept of free speech, because that's the basis of this loaded question that overlooks some erroneous assumptions about what people on the left believe: Do you support free speech?
I assume you believe there are some instances of speech which is overtly harmful and therefore not moral, the classic example being "Fire!" in a crowded theater. What about employers asking illegal interview questions? How do harassment and threats factor in and what is the moral response to that? What about the parent who tells their child they're a worthless, life-ruining burden who they wish was dead? How should we make that determination? Don't expect to come up with an answer right away, this is the subject of a vast body of litigation, legislation, jurisprudential opinion etc. It is a philosophical mire with countless exceptions and edge cases, so maybe respect its blurriness and complexity.
Liberals do support free speech. They disagree on where the boundary lies between protected speech and overtly harmful speech. Many people on the left are eternally dismayed by the ways the US has and does flirt and hold hands with fascism, white supremacy, and religious zealotry. They feel genuinely threatened by people who lobby to persecute them or even wipe them off the face of the planet. There are eccentric outliers that see no irony in accusing their detractors of the privilege and judgment they display, but this is not a phenomenon specific to any demographic.
You wouldn't be wrong to point out the fear is not a good motivator for level-headed legislation, but I think you should really ask the question of what creates this perception. I think we can do better than the stale and intellectually empty refrains of "people are so divided because of, like, the media" >

Thanks for thoughtfully condensing/clarifying your stance on these points.

But if we're talking about someone who must interact with a transperson regularly, who for whatever reason--perhaps a religious view--does not believe that one can change the gender they were assigned at birth, and feels as if they are violating their own moral code by using the transperson's preferred pronoun, and so they refuse to do so--that does not constitute harassment in my opinion. I think claiming that it does is dangerous, because compelling someone to do this means compelling them to accept a worldview.

The short answer to this is that basic forms of respect do not in practice necessitate accepting a worldview unless that worldview necessitates disrespect. I know trans people whose families deadname them because "we're lying in the eyes of God if we call them by their chosen name". Never mind that they've had their name legally changed. They want to die on that hill specifically because their understanding of faith hinges on othering people and they're uninterested in seeking solutions. The cruelty is not a byproduct of their beliefs, it's truly intentional, and its goal is to suppress individuality and coerce compliance/conformity. If you would like to get into the misgendering portion of this, I've had that conversation many times but usually it devolves into absurdity when we talk about gender being based on genitals and classic misunderstandings of things like gender dysphoria. Ask me to elaborate if you think it would be productive or relevant.
In a work setting, if their worldview requires people to do things that make other people uncomfortable, the ideal solution is obviously not to ask the offended party to "just deal with it". It's fair to expect (sufficiently paid haha) employees to bring a genuine desire to work with others to the table in these discussions. If your principles say you should do things that make a trans person uncomfortable, how is that the trans person's fault? I'm not aware of any dialogue to the effect of, "I want to follow my religion, but I also want to welcome you." So I think it's fair to say that current arguments against basic forms of respect for trans people on religious grounds are demonstrably disingenuous. And telling people they have to put up with abuse to have the wages they need to live is not really acceptable.
The law you cite may be heavy-handed or written so as to make abuse possible. This is not a partisan characteristic. Texas has some legislation in place which makes it illegal to move your residence "for the purpose of influencing an election". We can read between the lines all day about what that is intended to achieve. Is it helpful in a discussion about trends among American conservatives? Not really. I just don't think this CO law is relevant to your points about trends in liberal thought.

The thing is, speech is absolutely vital to a free society. It's such a special right, because it's our means of processing the world around us--without it, a society cannot refine public opinion, and without that, a society can not be a true democracy, in the sense that "the people" are leading the way.

Okay, not controversial, the vast majority of citizens in Western countries agree.

It seems to me that many people want to censor speech they view as cruel, and often it is cruel, but they wish to censor on that basis alone. I suspect this comes from a lack of democratic education and civics appreciation.

Ah no, this comes from very real situations where people's opportunities are limited and their survival is made contingent on enduring abuse. >

Alright, I'll bite. As a pretty far-left member of gen z myself, I'll go through how I feel about the issue, and see if I can change your view.
As far as constitutional free speech goes, there is not a single person in my circles who believes it shouldn't exist or is otherwise convinced that the government specifically should be allowed to silence conservatives, or anyone, outside of the exceptions you listed. This is a founding tenement of our country, I am not anti-America or advocating for anything to that degree.
There is a time and a place for a two-sided debate. I do not mind sharing a public space with a typical conservative, in fact, I welcome the diversity of viewpoints, and I think most of my peers would say the same. I do not think Twitter, for example, should ban someone strictly for being a conservative. I don't think any reasonable person in this day and age believes this.
The problem lies when someone asks me to tolerate someone who believes my very existence is a sin, or will call me a groomer for believing trans people exist. You may have heard of the paradox of tolerance before, which is a concept which counterintuitively posits that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance. Do not be mistaken, there is a major political faction today whose sole purpose is the manufacturing and dissemination of intolerance, and it is not the left.
I do not advocate for the deplatforming of anyone other than those who spread dangerous, hateful rhetoric, especially when directed at at-risk minority groups. There is no place for dangerous speech in a public square, and the more people who buy into the lie of accepting its presence as 'free speech', the more it becomes legitimized, acceptable, and the more danger these communities are in.
Other people in these comments have said this already, but outside of the government, nobody has to let you speak what you want in their spaces. There is no guaranteed protection from people who dislike you for your politics and want you to leave.
Public opinion is rapidly turning on the far right, as more and more people engage with its proponents with open distaste, and corporations recognize this. Social medias now have no choice but to maintain tolerant spaces in order to maintain advertiser revenue. This is not violating anyone's right to free speech, it is nothing more than the free market at work.
So, in conclusion, I (and many others like me) am not against free speech by any reasonable stretch of the definition. I am against hate speech, and only in places where it is not overseen by the government.