> Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences.
Freedom from consequences is the only possible thing freedom of speech could be, other than not having your mouth sewn shut.
What you meant to say was, what we value is freedom of speech from government consequences, not private actors. And that is a value judgement, not definitional. The incorrect statement you used is spread by people trying to hide the former as the latter.
Well, in the US, "Freedom of speech" is often used in the context of the US constitution so, while it is indeed freedom from consequences, it's freedom from consequences in the narrow sense of freedom from the consequence of the government using its police power to imprison you for saying something.
ADDED: In other situations the degree of saying whatever you want is very context-dependent and also dependent on what consequences you're willing to suffer.
Freedom from consequences is the only possible thing freedom of speech could be, other than not having your mouth sewn shut.
What you meant to say was, what we value is freedom of speech from government consequences, not private actors. And that is a value judgement, not definitional. The incorrect statement you used is spread by people trying to hide the former as the latter.