I'm checking out your links before commenting, so I'll remark on one specific thing in your post that I feel a bit wary about: No one's saying he doesn't have

I'm checking out your links before commenting, so I'll remark on one specific thing in your post that I feel a bit wary about: No one's saying he doesn't have the right to say it. Free speech is not freedom from consequences like boycotts and criticism. Can a society really be considered to have 'freedom of expression' if individuals have to worry that every statement has to pass some kind of checksum from a group that seeks his or her ouster for saying it? It's kind of why I'm starting to abhor the "free speech doesn't make you free from the court of public opinion" argument; it's being used so often and without any substantive discussion that it appears to be a pseudo-intellectualist's cop out. So sure, even if legislatively one has the 'freedom' to say what they want, what does it say about how we value that freedom if we tacitly strip people from the ability to have disagreeable views without launching upon them as if they were guilty of high-treason? Are you really free if what you say doesn't get you thrown in jail but gets you burned at the social media cross?