You can say whatever you want: you should also expect to take heat from non-like minded people. At some point the free speech concept transitioned to "I should be able to say whatever I want with no consequences". The First Amendment is very specific:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Says nothing about any one else's responses to your words.
Free speech is important even in contexts where the First Amendment doesn't apply. The First Amendment is important because free speech is important, not the other way around.
I agree with this:
You can say whatever you want: you should also expect
to take heat from non-like minded people.
But I think this misrepresents the view of free speech advocates (it certainly misrepresents my viewpoint):
At some point the free speech concept transitioned to
"I should be able to say whatever I want with no
consequences".
On the contrary, I think a lot of left-authoritarians who want to censor right-leaning speech are the ones touting this viewpoint. It's not the pro-free-speech crowd that wants no consequences for what they say, it's the anti-free-speech crowd. One of the consequences of stating your opinion publicly is that people will disagree with you.
Just to be clear, "fascism" is a term with a much more specific meaning than you're using it for. Fascism is a totalitarian/authoritarian ideology, but it's also a far-right one. "Left fascists" is an oxymoron. I think what you mean to say is "left totalitarians" or "left authoritarians".
> Those of us such as myself who are progressives have no moral high ground over the white supremacists if the fascist left use the exact same tactics that they do.
I don't think that's true either. I don't agree with censorship, but intentions do matter. Censorship as a misguided attempt to protect marginalized groups is bad, but it's certainly not equivalent to censorship in the service of white supremacy.
Who determines whose intentions are correct? THAT is the problem. Ask someone on the right, and they'll say that protesting against Gay Marriage is morally correct because marriage should be between a man and a woman. And don't forget that this is the exact stance that Obama took in both 2008 and 2012. Imagine if the Twitter mob tried to censor people or shame people for having a different viewpoint than the POTUS?
It's whoever has more power that determines who is "morally correct", and power never stays the same. If we relied on that, then black rights, women's rights and gay rights would never have advanced. It's better that the rules apply blindly to everyone forever, so that those with less power have the right to express their freedom, and those with power let them because it's best for everyone.
Well, if we want to get more specific I don't think the terms left and right make any sense: they're just approximations I'm using to speak to an audience which identifies as "left and not right".
In general, most attempts at censorship which I'm seeing are in the name of socially-left issues, such as gay rights, trans rights, antiracism, and women's rights. The idea being to silence homophobia, transphobia, racism, and sexism.
While I am against homophobia, transphobia, racism, and sexism, I think it's important to address the root causes of these issues rather than using totalitarian tactics to simply silence people with these bigoted beliefs.
Was Stalin better than Hitler because he had the interests of the downtrodden proletariat at heart? Or at some level of totalitarianism, did intent not really matter any more? (Or was he really much more a totalitarian than he was a friend of the downtrodden masses, and all that "helping the proletariat" stuff was just camouflage?)
I think if you've reached the point where you're committing genocide, you're well past the point where your intentions matter. There really isn't much else worth talking about if you're committing genocide, because genocide is just so much worse than almost everything.
Censorship is bad, but I think at the level of censorship we're discussing, it's not so bad that we can't reasonably note that bigotry is also bad. Someone promoting censorship of bigots is just a censor; someone promoting censorship in favor of bigots is both a censor and a bigot. Two wrongs are worse than one.
The article talks about "constitutional rights": hence the US constitution link. You may not be in the US: in which case, you're right, you shouldn't care.
The usual counter example to statements of the form "You are not free to do something if you are threatened with jail-time or murder or getting beaten or ... ." is "if you yell fire in a crowded theater, expect to get in trouble". You're free to yell, but there WILL be consequences.
In the same sense that I am free to murder someone or free to modify and distribute proprietary software - free in the sense that nature won't stop me, unlike flying for example, but not free in any useful sense of the word, otherwise everyone would have free speech at all times and no matter where they are and at what era they lived in as long as they are not mute.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Says nothing about any one else's responses to your words.