That's not the consequence here.

The consequence is “other private parties might choose not to relay your speech or continue association with you, exercising their own rights to free speech and association.”

Me not allowing you to use my resources to magnify the reach of your message isn't analogous to the state subjecting you to capital punishment.

> The whole POINT of 'free speech' is that there are no consequences.

No, the whole point is that the state doesn't have their thumb on the scale, allowing ideas to succeed or fail by their ability, or not, to attract support from private actors. Legislation in which the state intervenes to prevent private consequences through the exercise of free speech are not only on their face contrary to free speech, but sabotage the operation of the marketplace of ideas.

But I also wont bend the definition either. That’s where the problems start.