The first amendment does not guarantee freedom from consequences, but it's not absurd to expect people to also have a social notion of freedom of speech that encourages tolerance of different viewpoints.
>The first amendment does not guarantee freedom from consequences
It should. Freedom of speech without freedom from consequences is meaningless. If you have to self-censor yourelf because you might lose your job or whatever, then there's no freedom of speech.
> Freedom of speech without freedom from consequences is meaningless.
What is protected by the Constitution -- freedom (from government restrictions) of speech does guarantee (is, in fact, equivalent to) freedom from (government imposed) consequences of speech -- the former is present exactly to the extent that the latter is provided.
However, the much of the theory behind that guarantee of free speech is the idea that it is best to allow ideas to compete in the marketplace of ideas, and for people to hear the speech from all sides and to decide, individually, which speech to reward and which to punish(within their scope of power as market participants, rather than with the compulsory power of government). It was not about making speech free from private consequences, so long as those consequences were restricted to the kind that are not otherwise criminal.
The marketplace of ideas isn't as robust if ideas are allowed to corner the market by forcing other ideas off the market. If you disagree with someone, disagree with them (civilly, please), don't force them to shut up.
Since some people get paid to speak for someone else, I'm not sure you could make a blanket right like that. But certain forms of retaliation (like firing people) for certain forms of speech (like voting on ballot issues) should be grounds for a lawsuit.
