> freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences
And that's where you're wrong. The federal government at least in principle guarantees no consequences from itself for merely communicating or publishing ideas.
> Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequence.
This is double speak. If the government throws you in jail for saying something, you could say the same thing. You had freedom of speech but not freedom from consequence. You're distorting the meaning of freedom of speech.
> "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences."
> I am free to say anything I like, but if I say the wrong thing, I get punished for it
Not quite. You did not quote a critical part -- being free from consequences from the government. And as governments, almost everywhere, give themselves a monopoly on the use of force "if I say the wrong thing I get punished for it" does not apply.
Thus whoever wants to punish you needs to petition the government for help and prove their case -- if I make false claims that you consider damaging you can ask the government to help and prove your case in a civil court (instead of, say, punching me in the snout to punish me directly). Just my 2c.
> Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.
Yes it is; that's (most of) what "freedom" means. By your logic, if I would shoot you if you leave your house, then you would still be free to leave your house, 'just' not from the consequences.
Edit, a more proximate example: if the ministry of love will kindnap and torture you for criticising the government, your logic would hold that this does not violate freedom of speech, so long as they do not preemptivly prevent such criticism.
Usually when I see that statement it’s to make the point that freedom of speech (in the first amendment sense) protects you from government consequences, but not societal consequences. The government won’t stop you from saying something offensive, but your country club can kick you out for saying it.
I agree with you that this sense doesn’t really apply here, though.
When the government is the agent of "consequences", that's exactly what freedom of speech is.
reply