>

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.
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?