This distinction only really comes up in the case of large idea distribution platforms like Twitter, where to have a marketplace of ideas you need an actual pla

This distinction only really comes up in the case of large idea distribution platforms like Twitter, where to have a marketplace of ideas you need an actual place for them to compete. This isn't a new debate or problem of course, just our generations version of it. For most of written history censorship was a giant fight over who got to have printing presses. The "free press" is an important concept that came out of this era, and is respected even in countries that don't have a First Amendment. With respect to lacking consequences for speech, what people actually want is a lack of consequences for exploring and taking part in the marketplace of ideas. That in turn only really comes up when one side or another decides that competing over ideas is too much like hard work, and it's easier to just punish people for not agreeing. The consequences aren't connected to actually losing any debate but simply taking part in the first place. That's a social issue that is only resolved ultimately through debates like these.