Yes, it does. The right to free speech is not a right if exercising it costs you your livelihood. The idea that freedom of speech only restricts the government's actions is typical American myopia. George Washington didn't copyright freedom of expression and the US constitution is not the end all to human rights.

> The right to free speech is not a right if exercising it costs you your livelihood.

This sort of free speech has never existed and frankly it would be preposterous for it to exist.

A company couldn't fire a salesperson that went around telling potential customers "Hey, our product is garbage you should use our competitors"? A state employee couldn't be fired for lying to the races they don't like "You don't qualify for this, sorry". An employee couldn't be fired for sexually harassing coworkers because "Welp, free speech, can't stop Bill from telling Jill how much he wants to have sex with her".

If we take this right to its natural conclusion, it would preclude other rights like the freedom of association.

What is the substantial difference between the speech I listed and the speech you want protected?

> Freedom of speech is a protection from the government

No, that is the First Amendment. Freedom of speech is a much larger concept.

Some people have read this (or know some of the history at least):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Some people mistakenly believe that the first amendment is identical to the above; it is not:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_Unite...