This is why it is legal, not necessarily why we must describe is as a state of freedom for the speaker. Suppose you work for the govt and get fired for what you

This is why it is legal, not necessarily why we must describe is as a state of freedom for the speaker. Suppose you work for the govt and get fired for what you say. No one inflicted harm on you there. The important categorical difference is govt retribution versus individuals doing it. A society where people act outside the government to dissuade speech they don't like (even if they operate within the law) certainly feels less free that one which is more accepting.