Depends - All countries restrict speech, including the US, it's only the degree. US Supreme court felt restricting speech against the draft in WW1 was constitutional, and only overridden half a century later. Limiting freedom of speech somewhat is miles away from becoming fascist.

I don't see how rationing impacts a free country one way or another as it's merely a method of achieving a fair distribution of a limited resource. The US also had rationing in WW2, introduced after Pearl Harbor. Was the US still a free country?

I would argue that it was less free.

But more to the point: rationing is stupid, since you are strictly better of taxing the good you want to limit, and if necessary spend some of the tax in direct payments to those with the least income. The free market will take care of pricing the use of the taxed commodity correctly and the poor will be better of.

Rationing isn't stupid, nor taxing necessarily better. If there's time it's no doubt better to start with taxation and see how far that gets us. Quite possibly not far enough:

In the case of wartime fuel rationing, and perhaps if we were to end up with a carbon ration, it achieves a fair distribution, without the wealthy simply being able to pay extra not to participate. With enough wealth someone may not care that something carries a punitive tax rate, and they can continue being part of the problem.

In times of crisis, such as wartime or a failing ecosystem, we may find that ability to pay your way out of it unacceptable. Reasonably so in my opinion.