People who pretend corporations and other private entities are incapable of abridging freedom of speech or censoring others are doing far more harm to the defin

People who pretend corporations and other private entities are incapable of abridging freedom of speech or censoring others are doing far more harm to the definition. No one is saying anything about not suffering consequences for speech. Even though that argument is a holy bucket as well. Prison is a consequence of many things so saying "freedom of speech doesn't mean you shouldn't suffer the consequences of it" technically allows for imprisonment based on speech. Freedom of speech is the freedom to say whatever you want. However, everyone also has the freedom of association. And on my personal property, my rights trump yours. I am free to curtail your speech, to censor you, to deplatform you. And my line can be whatever I want it to be. And in doing so, I could say I'm for freedom of speech up to a certain point. I'm not going to let certain views persist where I can control it. But those people are free to say what they want in areas they control or in areas where no one has control. And the government in the US has taken the stance that it will not make any law abridging the right of people to say whatever. So if you want to go to the public park and say whatever, that is your right. No one has to listen.