Not sure how the "Freedom from consequences" bit enters the conversation here.

"Free Speech" that has consequences from the government isn't free speech. The "Freedom from consequences" has to do with private entities reacting to your speech. For example, asking you to leave the premises or getting banned.

Is it possible to separate free speech from free consequences? I'm not sure it can be. From your house, to government, to nature, doesn't every person/place have their own set of compromises/laws/rules for every set of conditions? Are you saying there should be no laws or no moderation, anywhere, at all? I don't think you mean to. Also, should 'online' be distinct/exempt from all other human endeavours, where rules don't apply? Anywhere there is a line between individuals and governments regarding free speech, and indeed law, then neither free speech, or law, exist truly. But it is difficult to give an example of a country where this is not so.

I am reminded of the other hot potato 'privacy'. The 'Solid Project' has an interesting way of dealing with that, which may also have a positive effect on how free speech evolves.

> Are you saying there should be no laws or no moderation, anywhere, at all?

I wanted to address this first. Nowhere did I mean to imply that I think there shouldn't be limits on speech or no moderation. There should certainly be some speech that is illegal (Calls to violence, harassment, etc), and web platforms absolutely have a right to moderate.

But, I think everyone can agree that the right to free speech granted by the First Amendment does mean that you can criticize the government, for example. If someone tries to claim "Yes, you have the right to criticize the government, but the government can arrest you for it! Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences!", then I would have to ask that person what they think "Freedom of speech" means, and what a "right" means, because to me, a "right" means either "You are allowed to do the thing and the government must not interfere or retaliate" (ie, free speech) or "You must be allowed access to the thing, and the government must provide it for you if you can't provide it yourself" (ie, a lawyer when you are on trial).

The notion of "You have the right to something, but the government will punish you for it" is just completely non-sensical.

But...all this only applies to government. Private entities are another matter entirely. They have the right to remove content and users however they want. Your freedom of speech does not trump their right to decide what gets displayed on their platform.

Private entities can also react however they want. If you go on a racist tirade on Twitter, your employer has a right to fire you, because having an extreme racist in the workplace is just asking for trouble.