So you do agree then, that if I find your intolerance of possibly perfectly fine (after all, why should your judgement of what is acceptable and what is not be any more valid than mine, his, hers, or that guy-over-there's) and at the very least in the US legal and specifically protected, I would have every right to take you out?
Not to godwin this, but historical parallels for your approach here do point very much at Germany.
Read what I wrote. I am 100% for free speech, it is one of the most important aspects of any free society.
However, freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If you make public speeches calling for the violent persecution of immigrants, there will be consequences for you. Yes, even in the US.
But that's not the question. The question is who decides, and how, what speech should have (negative) consequences. If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that you will provide consequences to those who you deem to be calling for something you do not agree with.
Another one of the most important aspect of the free society is the rule of law. Not vigilante justice.
Unfortunately it very often is susceptible to political and economic influences. And the courts are not in the streets, where the attacks happen. Far too often the police turn a blind eye to right wing incitement and violence (due to a large number of sympathizers in the police), so sometimes direct action is the only way to show fascists and other hatemongers the error of their ways.
And again, are we to assume that it is you who will decide who is a fascist and who is not?
And why such a discrimination of communists, who are far more deadly and dangerous than any "fascist" (your Soviet terminology is showing; surely you mean nazis of different stripes, not comparatively vegetarian Italians).
It is generally a Soviet trait to conflate followers of Mussolini with nazis.
Arguably, communists are a greater problem than fringe nazi groups exactly because while being a nazi is not acceptable in a decent company, being a communist unfortunately is despite all historical evidence of their dangerousness.
But you are still avoiding the key question -- are you taking it upon yourself to determine who is a "fascist" to suffer consequences, and who is not?
Not to godwin this, but historical parallels for your approach here do point very much at Germany.