1. Lo and behold you have the Treaty of Versailles and an expert marketeer. Your "point" mentioned no such thing, and was so general I responded to the general point. If autocracy was as widespread as you claim, it would be the most common method of government in developed countries. You have now clarified, and are still wrong. Hitler rose to power through expert political strategy, and through hiding the atrocity. He wasn't campaigning to gas the Jews, he campaigned as a great reformer of Germany, scapegoating the Allies. No amount of speech control, or lack thereof, would have prevented or aided a populist leader reacting to demand in order to achieve personal goals. You are judging it after the fact, which is why you are wrong. The German people at the time did not vote in someone who sold himself on genocide. I fail to see the cause and effect any amount of speech control would have had, save maybe giving rise to an underground movement that would have turned violent as you cannot fix autocracy with more autocracy.

2. You did not respond to the point. Anyone interested in actually debating instead of being the very ideologue criticized would have understood what I was getting at. I can call whatever I want whatever I want. It is the very nature of spin and misinformation. It's the bread and butter of skilled manipulators. Especially considering that I have to deal with that misinformation whenever I have to outline my political views. What's fascism to you is not automatically fascism to other people. I'm much rather interested in seeing the rationale behind one's actions instead of just labeling and moving on. How would you like it if I called you a communist? After all, you want to police language just like they did, and if it looks like communism, and smells like communism, I hope you see the flaw in your logic. There is no objective to ground yourself on without appeal to something already criminal, and your example goes beyond a free speech issue into battery, otherwise known as a crime not protected, and an infringement on someone else's rights. I do not appreciate straw men, please refrain from using them in the future.

3. Then you have an uneducated public. I specified this. Not my problem if a whole populace is that easily swayed. There must exist some underlying reasons for why that person is even marketable if they have such repugnant ideas in the first place. After all, idiots, assuming they are known to be such, do not and will not receive power unless there's a reason overriding their incompetence.

4. Who said you have the right to determine what is and is not the center of politics? For that matter, who gave you the right to speak on behalf of the rest of the world? Don't call objective what is inherently subjective, especially if you are going to insinuate that one is worse because they aren't in lockstep with you. Funny, that's exactly a tactic a fascist ideologue would use... Paint the other side as evil as possible... Believe me, I want to debate with you, but if you are going to do exactly what an ideologue does while claiming to not be one, I will insult you, because you deserve to be insulted for asserting such a contradiction.

5. You never defined fascism first of all. Second of all, you have the right to criticize the existence of that right as you are now doing. The only reason we are talking at all is because we are free to do so. The "fascist" has every right to it as we do, and I will disagree with him that whatever he wants silenced should be silenced. It's called being ideologically consistent. At the end of the day, it's just words. The law cares about actions. If that fascist goes out and does something, I will be a member of the crowd condemning him, should he be guilty of anything, I will criticize his ideas, and I will undress him as the idiot he is, but I will not silence him, because he is just as much a person as you or I, and rights are meant to be universal. If they are not, then they do not properly exist, and are there to be revoked whenever deemed necessary, or favorable. It is the mark of ignorance to assume a conditional right as you are proposing is a right at all, for it does not exist, except at the behest of government, and like they've been a paragon of protecting our freedoms.

6. I've thought it over for years now. I'm majoring in politics and I'm not ignorant of the situation. Don't treat me like a child if you can only handle criticism like one. The only example you provided was a case of battery at best for your point, which is a crime, therefore no right can save you, or a case where the threat is so non-credible that your rights were never threatened in the first place. If you have a bone to pick with someone, take it up with the legal system, because it's not the fault of the right that you didn't use/qualify for the remedy provided. If you are so for debate, why are you advocating that a "fascist" cannot enjoy equal platform to express his ideas as you? Rational debate needs the level of equality, now are you for or against it, because you cannot say "I'm for free speech!" and then say "You can't express that." unless you've got a legal matter, in which case go get a lawyer instead of wasting both our time.

7. "The kind of person who goes all "but muh freeze peach :(" when someone tells fascists to fuck off is listening to the letter of the law and not the spirit. The point of the law was to allow anyone who genuinely wanted positive change to express their view on how to get there without fear of getting silenced by the government (Which I don't support btw, I'd rather fight fascists through direct action), and not be able to spread bile and hatred against minorities without fear of consequences."

It was good for Germany to get rid of the Jews that were stifling the economic growth and development of the nation by occupying the controls of our industries and preventing development through an oligarchy. It was good and productive to break the oppressive Versailles Treaty and retake the land where all our major industry was located, for our country could not survive without it. In the name of justice, for it was the Allies that imposed such punitive conditions on us in the first place, we must fight back against our oppressors and retake our homes and what rightfully belongs to us.

Sounds pretty positive, doesn't it, if you don't assume I'm referencing Hitler, I am trying to prove a point after all.

Spin exists. Given any scenario, enough time, and enough public support, you can make the torture and prolonged execution of entire races sound like the best thing since sliced bread. Face it. People lie. If you've read 1984, which I doubt, the slogans of "War is Peace!", "Freedom is Slavery!", and such should ring in your mind when talking about how someone who wants power can manipulate the truth. "Positive change?" Hell, I can make the case that people like you need to be culled from the population, and you can make the same case about me, and these two necessarily conflicting ideas can both be framed as positive change. Welcome to the dirty side of human nature, a.k.a. reality. You say nothing when the fascists are silenced, but whose to say the definition of fascist can't change? Maybe fascist changes from blatant racists and their ilk, to maybe someone who disagrees with welfare, maybe someone who thinks immigration needs reform, maybe both, or maybe someone simply advocating for a place where one can express whatever thought they wish without worry of being punished by the government for what they say, since you are proposing that some people not be allowed to express their opinions..

Whose going to protect you when Big Brother comes knocking on your door, fascist? Because there is no direct action other than silencing.