Exposing the broken argument: "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences."

The now-common adage that "freedom of speech does not protect from freedom of consequences" is blatantly fraudulent.

I generally avoid making posts about public figures, especially those in the political sphere. However, this particular issue has been troubling me for years, and the prevailing narrative around it has not shifted in a desirable direction. The consequences of this issue have been near-irreparable across various aspects of our lives in developed countries over the past couple of decades, so it needs to just be plainly repeated:

The human right to “freedom of speech” DOES IN FACT generally mean “freedom from consequences”.

The now-common, tainted refrain that “free speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences” is obviously misleading and false when examined practically instead of hiding behind mental gymnastics to make some “intellectually profound” statement in favor of oppressing your political “opposition” while pretending you do not.

If the government and our larger society (corporations, other people, etc.) performs, or refuses to protect people from “consequences” that deprive an individual of their basic rights based on the content of what they say, such as but not limited to:

Kidnapping you and putting you into a cage (imprisonment)
Depriving you of the ability to make an honest living (job) because of your political conviction rather than your ability to perform the work (discrimination)
Killing you (murder)

Then it is inherently obvious that, that person does not truly have “freedom of speech”, isn’t it? That their “freedom of speech” isn’t actually being protected. What exactly else would one believe that “freedom of speech” actually frees us as human beings from?

Charlie Kirk didn’t deserve to die today. His assassination is not some “natural consequence” of his speech, but an act of terrorism. It is a blatant violation of the right to free speech, which should be safeguarded regardless of one’s political views. Just because it “wasn’t the government” or “it was a private entity” doesn’t absolve the perpetrator of the responsibility protecting people’s rights, nor does it give the perpetrator the moral right to freely oppress others.

This consistent pattern of our current social climate of placidly just laying down, and justifying terrible treatment to certain groups of people because they don’t 100% agree with what they have to say, clearly isn’t going so well. Our global society, particularly in the “Western world”, needs to pivot back and course correct: as soon as possible.