(Original post by hektik)
I have heard the term "classical liberalism" before, it might mean that there has indeed been a shift.
With behaviour like you defined above, if such a person was like that, you couldn't call then a liberal person. It's agressive, self-righteous and quite authoritarian.
The shift has been mainly in economic affairs. Modern liberals think that the state can aid in expanding individual freedom with the use of the various welfare state measures. Classical liberals were more sceptical of state power but that was mainly because they were writing at a period when the state was not entirely accountable to the whole of people (and were clearly right in being sceptical of its power). That is hopefully not true in most modern liberal democracies today.
I don't think modern liberalism is compatible with relativism at all. It's a strongly moralistic view of politics. All liberals that I know (bar someone like Richard Rorty) are moral universalists. Their version of liberalism would be incompatible with any form of relativism. Same goes with religious fundamentalism.
There may be a problem with some liberals' conception of free speech. Maybe some of them (e.g. Waldron) go too far in justifying restricting freedom of speech. But there are others (e.g. Ronald Dworkin -- read his "the right to ridicule" ) who are in favour of freedom of speech in nearly every instance.
So to sum up:
Yes, you're clearly biased against modern liberalism.
There are many forms of modern liberalism and some of them might be biased against certain kinds of speech (mainly against blacks and muslims tbh) but there are others which are not.
The difference between classical and modern liberalism is, in my view, entirely based on empirical evidence. Classical liberals should have no problem with the expansive welfare state provided its goal is to maximise individual freedom (see Illiberal libertarians by Freeman). In practice, most classical liberals will claim that the state does not in fact expand individual liberty despite its stated aims whereas modern liberals will argue the opposite. But that's an argument based on their interpretation of the empirical evidence. The substantive vision of a liberal society remains fundamentally the same imo.