> Freedom to do a thing implies protection from consequence, or you're not free.

This is a wild take on freedom. Do you seriously believe that free speech means that you should be able to say anything and be protected from any and all consequences?

I'm not sure what "any and all" means, but it certainly protects you physically and that implies that you get protection from criminal violence and harassment, and certainly should. No?

It's so vague, these one-liners, that we're talking past one another. Surely you don't think you should be able to doxx or punch someone in the face that has extremist views?

> Surely you don't think you should be able to doxx or punch someone in the face that has extremist views?

How could you possibly believe this in good faith? Consequences can also be, for example, people expressing their distaste in your speech and choosing to boycott your products if you're a business.

You said protection from consequences, not protection from criminal violence and harassment. If you meant protection from criminal violence and harassment, you should have said protection from criminal violence and harassment.

You honestly thought that people who raise their eyebrows at the phrase 'consequences to speech' advocate preventing boycotts or forcing people to continue buying products?

How about the real world consequences people could potentially be referring to: harassment, doxxing, job losses and violence. I've met plenty of 'punch a Nazi in the face' people to know that many people believe that as a consequence.

Again, if you wanted to convey a specific meaning of consequences you probably should have just said that. There's a lot of consequences you're protected from, and even more that you're not protected from.

I get subtracted points on every single reply to this thread by God knows who, but the point I've been trying to make is, when someone talks about consequences of speech, it sounds threatening.