I usually think of free speech in this context to mean freedom from state intervention. The state shouldn't be allowed to treat you differently from others because of what you say.

Here we're talking about how the public's treatment of Mozilla and Eich have changed because of their speech. This is perfectly rational.

To give you a counter example. If we accept that "having a right to it" means never "suffering consequences" then I'm never allowed to form an opinion of a person based on the things they say. I have to think "well he said all those racist things but I've never seen him in a KKK uniform so my opinion is still neutral".

TL;DR On issues of free speech we, the people, can make people suffer consequences as we see fit. The state cannot.

Do you then support the legitimacy of the Hollywood blacklist during the McCarthy era? It was a purely private sector action with no government enforcement. Furthermore, communist sympathizers were widely reviled and feared in the society as a whole.

>I usually think of free speech in this context to mean freedom from state intervention. The state shouldn't be allowed to treat you differently from others because of what you say.

No, it was also meant against any kind of intervention. Also from the church for example. Or bigoted crowed. Or lynching.

Take a racist Southern town for example. Is this idea of free speech compatible with the town people giving a black guy a hard time if speaks freely (not hiring him, the ocassional threat, passive agreesive attitude towards him, etc), just because the state is not involved?

>To give you a counter example. If we accept that "having a right to it" means never "suffering consequences" then I'm never allowed to form an opinion of a person based on the things they say

Well, opinion is also free speech (well, thought and speech) itself. Not really talking about that when discussing actual consequences. Or even "I'm not going to buy this guy's book now that he said that".

So if I'm your fiance and you suddenly find out that, say, I am a member of the KKK, you can't decide not to marry me (that would after all be a consequence beyond simply disagreeing)?

Obviously that would be absurd. As an individual I'm entirely within my rights to respond to the views of another beyond simply disagreeing and debating with them.

It seems entirely reasonable to me that I would be able to choose not to spend time with someone with views I found abhorrent.

So how about choosing to work (or not work) on a voluntary project being run by someone whose views I disagreed with?

>"Your right to say it", means exactly the right to say it and NOT suffer consequences.

It depends what consequences we're talking about here. There's a difference between the consequence of being thrown in jail for something you said and people thinking less/differently of you because of something you said. I suspect OP was referring to the latter.

Yes, but what happened is the former: there were specific requests for his losing his job, and in the end he had to resign for them.

So, not just people "thinking less of him", but concrete consequences to his income (and hireability).

Basically, for a person with fewer means and, say, a mortage, it would be equivalent of having him go homeless for what he said...

Your thinking here is awkward, confused, conflated and simplistic.

Thanks, I prefer it that way.

At least I give specific arguments about it, not just throw some words like "awkward" and "confused" against a point of view I don't like.