Perhaps I shouldn't have used that example. I wasn't trying to make a value judgement, rather to point out that we have collectively decided, "yes, we like free speech - but only up to a point." That's fine, I'm OK with it, but I think we ought to be clear that when we place limits on where and how people can express themselves we are, by definition, limiting their freedom of speech and expression.
I disagree that the difference you've identified truly exists. In some cases we punish a speaker based on how others reacted to what they said, in some cases we don't. We deliberate on these things on a case-by-case basis, there's no consistent rule.
Don't confuse punishing someone for yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater regardless of reason for doing so, with punishing someone for instigating a crushing stampede by yelling "fire!" in a theater when there knowingly wasn't a threat thereof. Both are certainly "consequences"; I'm concerned that some here seem unclear of the difference and would protect the speaker in the latter case on grounds conflated with the former.