The problem with the "free speech is not consequence-free speech" meme is that, in principle, we're "free" to perform any action whatsoever. I mean, we're free

The problem with the "free speech is not consequence-free speech" meme is that, in principle, we're "free" to perform any action whatsoever. I mean, we're free to rob banks too. Sure, there are some pretty severe consequences for it, but nobody stops my going to a bank and passing a note that demands all the cash in the vault. We say we're not free to rob banks because the consequences of bank robbery are strong enough to deter the act. Now let's look at speech. When speaking out means being targeted by hate mobs, losing your job, and having to pull your kids out of school to start a new life elsewhere, in what sense are you free to speak? In today's climate, the consequences of speech are severe enough to deter the act. It doesn't matter whether these consequences technically originate from the government or from powerful mega-corporations. We have a no societal interest in bank robbery. We do have a strong societal interest in the free exchange of ideas, since free and vigorous debate is the only way known to separate good policies from ones ones that don't work. Free expression is the only way to truly understand what we profess to understand. A minority of our society disagrees about speech. They see speech as a threat to be contained. They think uncomfortable ideas are just as injurious as physical violence and are willing to take extreme measures in what they see as self-defense. History is not kind to such people in the long run, but here we are. We should not allow this minority to create consequences for speech that are strong enough to shut down the engine of intellectual curiosity that's given us civilization.