> I respect free speech. I don't respect absolutist speech.

Then don't call it free speech.

The animals in the zoo are of course permitted to roam free! It would be inhumane otherwise. All they have to do is remain within the confines of their enclosures otherwise they will be shot.

Many countries have free speech but they ban speech that is hateful and calls for persecution of minorities. These are reasonable limits to live together in a peaceful, tolerant society. Free speech is not an edict from God. It is a liberal idea with the intent of creating an open society. An open society is not one that advocates for the killing of minorities. Other free countries have done this to little fanfare and are overall more peaceful as a result. Look at what they have done in other places and don't just assume that what America is doing is superior.

Other countries have done it and the results were disastrous for freedom.

Germany, Sweden, and France for example have taken the idea of hate speech and extended into the realm of control of information. If you post on Facebook the crime statistics for your town that show immigrants are responsible for 90% of the crimes in your district, you can be prosecuted. Freaking Brigid Bardot was fined five thousand Euros for saying Islam is bad for women in her biography.

It is a nightmare. Why did we bother with the Cold War if we are going to institute the thought police we were so against for 60 years.

You're going to define "nightmare" and "disastrous", because I would argue strongly that the actual real-world rise of a fascist movement that we are witnessing is of much greater existential concern than what you are describing.

Additionally, I contend with your assertion that posting crime statistics cannot be construed as hate speech. Are the statistics being presented in a neutral way with context? Or is this an effort to characterize immigrants as criminals based on an a priori belief that this is true? Is this just sharing information or an attempt to build hatred toward a specific group? Does the author look at the reasons we see greater crime in poor and immigrant areas or does he insinuate that immigrants are somehow just inherently more violent? As Twain said, there are lies, damn lies, and there are statistics.

The intent of the posting the statistics is irrelevant. If the person is against immigration into their town, they should be able to post the crime statistics with the intent to influence other locals to reject the immigrants. It is up to the reader of the information to determine whether it was biased, or whether bias is warranted. Even if all immigrants are not criminals, you can determine that crime went up in your town, zero in on them as the cause, and rightfully decide to oppose all immigration to your town because you'd rather have crime levels where they were before.

There is no real world rise of facism in the United States. The nationwide gathering of white nationalists last weekend barely managed to scrape together a few hundred people.

The danger of fascism is primarily from the left, who believe it is alright for masked ANTIFA protesters to intimidate and commit acts of violence. They are the equivalent of a modern Klu Klux Klan and largely get a pass by the press. Trump's executive orders are no more autocratic than his predecessors and he is not aided and abided by a willing press.

Certainly in the Philippines and Venezuela you could make an argument about a descent into fascism.

EDIT: Here was an anger-fueled answer about not stooping as low as nazis and how the erosion of free speech has a snowball effect.

There's irony in defending peace with anger, so I've deleted it.

So I'll just remind anyone reading this: Life is short. Enjoy and defend the freedoms you have now while you can; for the road to hell is paved with good intentions and we never know when it could be our turn to become the marginalized.