You are talking about the 1st amendment. Free speech is a principle whereas the 1st amendment restricts the government from violating that principle in its relations with the populace.
Free speech as a principle you’re after (aka truly free speech without any consequences whatsoever) never existed.
You’re free to say whatever you want, and I’m free to take actions based on that. You cannot give free speech benefits only to one side of the argument.
This is a pretty big distraction that is often used in these types of discussions. It's a distortion of what people actually want. The "consequences" being advocated are often just the whims of today's favored group. Giving free speech benefits to only one side of the argument is exactly what people are asking for when they ask for "consequences" -- freedom for A, consequences for B.
