Restricting freedom of speech (through "hate speech" laws and the like) is a danger to democracy then since it limits people from expressing their ideas and putting political power behind them.

There are lots of communists, authoritarians, fascists, socialists, even neo-nazis in the US. All of which want to remove democracy however, a political belief isn’t punishable by death.

If people democratically decide to reduce democracy, is that not the will of the people and thus democratic?

If you actually believe in democracy, nobody can ever be a “danger to democracy” for expressing their opinions…since that is the point of a democracy.

Labeling someone a “danger” an emotional ad hominem argument devoid of meaning used by people who can’t rationally argue their positions with logic.

> If people democratically decide to reduce democracy, is that not the will of the people and thus democratic?

If someone decides of their own volition to become a slave, is that not their free will?

Most of us believe that certain rights should be inalienable.

> Labeling someone a “danger” an emotional ad hominem argument

Sometimes, perhaps, but not always.

But we’re not talking about someone advocating slavery, we’re talking about US politics, which is essentially a slow motion hysterical melodrama over whether to spend 30% or 40% of GDP on social welfare, and on which programs.

> If people democratically decide to reduce democracy, is that not the will of the people and thus democratic?

I'd say the democratic minority might disagree but since you defined it as being democratic it's impossible to argue.