Interesting question. The right to free speech and the right to free speech without consequence would seem to me to be different things. If the first amendment

Interesting question. The right to free speech and the right to free speech without consequence would seem to me to be different things. If the first amendment allowed people to say what they want without consequence then there would be no such thing as libel or slander. The fact that they exist suggest that this obviously isn't the case. So there's going to be an element of whether what was said was broadly factually accurate and / or whether it was put forward in a vaguely constructive way. Obviously if it wasn't then it would potentially be libellous which would very clearly seem to be a disciplinary matter (though whether it's a sacking offence isn't clear). I'd be curious to know how the same lawyer would see a scenario where I continually publicly insulted my wife. Grounds for divorce (which is how I'd see it) or would that be impacting my first amendment rights?