[slightwinder]

If there are consequences for your speech, then it's not free.

[popinman322]

You're conflating definitions of the word free.

Free in "freedom of speech" is the ability to say anything you want.

Your choice of free means cost.

So you're free to speak, but the speech itself isn't free.

[slightwinder]

Your definition makes zero sense. Unless you are physical unable to speak, you are always "free" to speak, saying whatever you want.

Freedom of speech is by definition exactly this: free of consequences.

[orf]

So by your definition if you call someone an idiot and they punch you in the face for saying that, you don’t have freedom of speech?

Right. It’s freedom of consequences from a specific entity, the government, not freedom from consequences in general.

[slightwinder]

Re 1: Yes.

Re 2: No. It's just the usual implementation.

[orf]

An absolutist definition like that is completely and utterly meaningless unless the only person you talk to is yourself. And even then there are concequences for what you say to yourself, even though they might not be externally visable immediately. And if you want to get really ridiculous concequences of saying anything involve movements of air and possibly particles of spit. Maybe even spreading an infection.

So by your definition freedom of speech cannot exist, or you need to refine your meaning of "concequences". That refined meaning is accepted as conceqences from the government.

Any other meaning is senseless because people are free agents and may respond to your speech in any way they feel fit.

[LandR]

I see freedom of speech starts and ends at the government can't compel or supress your speech.

Your employer or society in general absolutely can via the consequences of what you say. If you are making your employer look bad then they can and should be able to get rid of you.

If society decides they don't like you because of what you say and choose not to associate with you or use your business than that also feels fair enough.