I am willing to say I see your point. There are similarities in the structure of the situation of facing consequences for speech. You say something, someone doe

I am willing to say I see your point. There are similarities in the structure of the situation of facing consequences for speech. You say something, someone doesn't like it, you face a consequence. But there's a broad spectrum in the possibilities there. Who said something, who did they say it to, why did they say it, what did they mean by it, was someone injured or endangered by their speech -- if so, who? What is the relationship between these people in terms of the power they each have access to? What is the context? What were the consequences, who thought of them, how are they realized? These and more are all important questions to ask -- it is not so simple as, "consequences for speech is scary stuff". For example, a rich fella using paid ads to attack some poor person he specifically dislikes, spreading lies and using his means to ruin a life? There are laws to make that have consequences, and most people would agree they are just. A king imprisoning someone for life because they spoke a dissenting opinion? Most of us would feel that is unjust. The power relationship, the proportionality, the fairness -- they're all wrong. A university professor repeatedly telling "off-color jokes" along sexual or racial lines, after being asked to stop, and eventually being yelled at, possibly losing his position? Sure, that's consequences too. Is it really the same in any meaningful way? Is there some mechanism whereby the one becomes the other? I absolutely do not think so.