In short the answer to your first and second questions is no, but allow me to explain further. First we need to define some terms and discuss them: chiefly what tolerance is. Tolerance is basically the idea that although we differ in some way we must respect each other’s right to be as we are. Now we have a notion that tolerance is an absolute good and that intolerance is an absolute bad; however, this is not the case. For instance, we don’t tolerate individuals who commit violent acts (except for acts self defense) and this is beneficial to society as a whole. Now what about a less obvious example? What if someone states a negative opinion of someone because of their race, gender, or other immutable characteristic? Is this intolerance? I don’t think it is: it is bigoted, ignorant, and stupid in my opinion but it is not intolerant. Unless such an individual took actions (such as violence towards another or violated their rights as an individual), then that person is not being intolerant. This might seem like knit-picking, but it is important to distinguish actual real intolerance and ones personal beliefs that we find morally reprehensible.

As for you second paragraph: yes most people (at least those I’ve met) are intolerant towards individuals who do not respect others rights and that is a good thing lest we devolve into disorder.

As for your opponent from my understanding of hate speech, zero tolerance of those individuals who don’t respect the rights of others is not hate speech unless such an act is intolerance is based upon some immutable characteristic. Side not: I do not agree with the concept of hate speech, but from my understanding of the concept your opponent is incorrect in his assertion. I’d be glad to discuss this further if you wish as I suspect many individuals will disagree with me on this.

As long as your not commiting an unjustified act of violence,not using force to suppress those you disagree with, nor generally violating someone else’s rights then you’re not being intolerant.

I feel people should generally not put down or verbally/psychologically abuse others simply because the feel the urge to do so. I think it's good for people to try and treat each other well. Behaving this way helps us live together more harmoniously.

On the other hand, in a general overall sense, people fundamentally are free to say what they will. That's not really a right, that's just a fact. However, it's also true that some ways of behaving are better than others.

You don't have to tolerate the intolerant.

free speech is just that. you have the ability to NOT LISTEN

Freedom of speech and freedom from consequences are not synonymous. If you wish to express your beliefs, be prepared for repercussions. There will always be someone who disagrees and more often than not, especially lately, those responses border on threatening. That is when your/their freedom of speech has concequences.

There are prohibitions of speech that incite criminal activity. Ad hominem attacks are just stupid. Unless they include lies that do damage to the target's well being.

But: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but your words will never hurt me."

General comment: speaking to the universal "you" :::::

I cannot offend you.
Offense is NOT something that can be given.
Offense, like insultance, is a feeling.
It is an emotional RESPONSE.
And as with all feelings, it is a learned reaction.
I am not responsible for your feelings.

And you will learn nothing from words you hear if you let your feelings interfere with your thinking about those words.

===========================

It should not be inferred from the above that i am not with the OP about his concern about "free speech" that is used to interfere with other person's freedom of speech, and other liberal rights.

Responding to those who are verbally annoying is often our duty. Especially when there is the possibility of physical violence.

But, to silence those who are spouting stupid shit will only result in the spreading of that stupidity. Best let them draw attention to their idiocy.

Freedom of speech means you can say whatever stupid, or awful crap you feel like. It doesn't mean anyone has to listen, or protect you from the consequences of your speech.

Here's how free speech works:

You have the right to say what ever comes out of your damn fool mouth, so long as it is not slanderous. You do NOT have the right to protection from being publicly ridiculed or ostricized for saying it.

I spoke out, using flyers, about a woman who emotionally abused me. But she claimed fear and I got in trouble with the "law". I had every right to tell the world how she abused me but courts don't like it. Still believe it was wrong to punish me but this system doesn't follow its own rules or the Constitution.

I was stunned to learn that my intolerance of intolerance had a name. We are not the only people to notice this anomaly. [en.wikipedia.org]

So long as it doesn't violate some else rights, all speech should be free. And that's something that's going to have to be decided on a case by case basis. But, if you feel the need to step in when you feel someone is being abused, by all means do so. Your have the right to express yourself also. The thing about free speech is, it should be, in a perfect world, self-regulating. You can say or do whatever you want, but that freedom comes with the price of knowing that others also have the right to kick your ass for it. And that street runs both ways. It's not a perfect system, but it gets the job done.

I do not believe your stance requires a zero tolerance attitude.

Zero tolerance has been shown to foster the prejudices it was intended to prevent. Hate speech is the utterance of the prejudices a person's upbringing and reinforced by their social circle.

First of all, define intolerance? Intolerance, as it's currently used in the popular vernacular, has come to mean "anything that offends me." SO most of the time when someone says, "zero intolerance," they mean "don't you dare offend me." And ironically, they're the first people to block, unfriend, or tag the person who does offend them.

So, there's that. But the whole equating tolerance with freedom of speech is a misnomer... The whole purpose of the 1st Amendment was to make sure that those who were offended (in government) didn't have the power to harm the speaker that offended them. Also, Free speech only applies to the government, so if I'm on a radio show, and the audience hates what I said, and the radio station fires me... that's not a free speech issue.

And finally, unfortunately, the words intolerant, bigot, racist, biased... have been so overgeneralized that they no longer carry the connection to the problem that they used to. It's never going to be settle what is, or what isn't, but common sense helps us understand what is proper.

Subtext is also a huge issue, but that's for another day.

The question I would ask myself is, am I truly being an ally by doing all I can or am I exercising my chance to force change by being militant. Am I doing this for myself or someone else? Only you can answer that after searching your core, it does change once in a while without notice.
Just saying that's what I do when I face a personal question. I try to view my stance from other angles to find my reasoning.
As to your question, in my view you are not being intolerant of the said situations. There is never an excuse for abuse of any form, it is hate transformed to a physical state. I only hope your inflexibility does not extend to other areas where it may not be the best option.

I believe that free speech is my ability to speak, write, or even sing about anything I believe in, or even those things I don't believe whether they agree with what you believe in or not. I believe that I can speak for or against my government or the state of my grandson's ant farm. And I believe that the person across the street from me has the right to yell at the top of his lungs the opposite of what I believe and yell at the top of mine. That is free speech.

Abuse comes into play when discussing Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

hear, hear ! To my mind, being a caring , thoughtful individual means not quietly tolerating the intolerable. Or mindless cruelty and disrespect to others.

My understanding of where free speech stops at inciting violence. Free speech does not include private speech; i.e. at work, paid speech etc.

I don't think it does.

I wouldn't feel safe if I were a Muslim woman walking past a demo of far right supporters who were listening to a speech decrying Muslims as being evil and deserving deportation and arrest.

Freedom of speech should not cross the line of inciting violence and murder.

I think that is how some people shut you down if you say that you disagree with them. To me free speech means that you can say what you think but you can do it with some finesse rather than ranting. A lot of people cannot deal with that