It's unfortunate you've chosen to engage in your own anti-speech obfuscation here though. >Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. The reason this

It's unfortunate you've chosen to engage in your own anti-speech obfuscation here though. >Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. The reason this line is bad is because it's wrong and misused from multiple directions due to overloading/being vague with "consequences". Freedom of speech is freedom from VIOLENT, or directly violent adjacent [0], consequences, public or private. But SOCIAL consequences aren't infringement on free speech rights, they are exercising free speech rights. The exact same freedom of speech and association that gives you the right to say something offensive also gives everyone else the right to say offensive things back and/or never have anything to do with you again. Free speech culture and principles typically encourage attempting to maintain a more open and curious mind then you are required to, and to use your rights with appropriate measure and discretion. And of course social/economic consequences go round and round, too harsh a reaction may result in others treating the one who is judged to have been too harsh with consequences in turn, and on and on. That's the vibrant market of ideas. But it's false if someone brings this line up to support or excuse violent speech suppression, and it's also false if someone brings this up sarcastically and tries to equate bans from private soap boxes, people refusing to offer support, people offering criticism, etc with use of violence. If you get banned from some web forum, which is said web forum's freedom of speech, and then whine about your free speech rights, and someone says "that doesn't give you freedom from consequences" you should recognize they're completely correct as far as social consequences go, and would be completely wrong if they said you should get fined or imprisoned or beat up or the like. I consider myself a "free speech absolutist", but that's within a wholistic understanding of the whole system of free speech applying to everyone with infinite regression. The phase has gotten a bad name from hypocrites who call themselves that while then complaining loudly about others exercising their free speech (which of course is itself free speech). ---- 0: For example if government imposes a fine someone might say that's not violence, but the reason it's a "fine" not a "suggestion" is that it's backed by the government's general monopoly on violence. What makes a law a law is what happens if you don't go along with it. It can be nested many levels deep, and involve discretion and resource limits, but ultimately it always ends up with violence.