>

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.
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?