> Freedom of speech is about the freedom to make political opinions while retaining your place in society as a citizen.

No, freedom of speech is about not being censored for expressing your opinions. It is not a right to be facilitated in expressing your opinions, or freedom of consequences for your opinions.

Go tell that to all the minorities around the world who have state granted "freedom of speech" but are suppressed/controlled by mobs in other countries.

It's counter to freedom of speech and it isn't acceptable.

I'd argue that's more a problem with rule of law than anything freedom of speech related.

Freedom of speech is about law. The first ammendment says:

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Note that that law says nothing about retaining your place in society.

It doesn't have to, because the effect of any law is to define what you can and cannot do in society without being punished, killed or excommunicated by the society, as represented by the government.

> or anything that touch on him running the FSF.

Can't you see that a position that requires public speaking requires someone who is good at public speaking? Someone who doesn't continually cause misunderstanding because they're so poor at communicating?

He's pretty good at communicating. The problem is just that people don't like what he says.

Exactly, if you've listened to RMS's speeches, you'll realize that he's a very good communicator. He is usually well prepared and gets his points across well. But most people find his opinions (even his nonpolitical technical ones) extreme and therefore conclude that he isn't a good speaker.