Indeed I have read through Farrand's records of the constitutional convention, I've read many of the founders personal writings (both federalists and anti federalists), I've read many works of prominent Enlightenment thinkers, and I've studied much of the history of the oppression and censorship of the Church which helped inspire the ideal of freedom of speech.
Nowhere have I seen anything resembling "freedom of speech != freedom from consequences", except from the Church.
After all, heretics and blasphemers were indeed free to say what they wanted to say (they had larynxes, after all), but they were not free from the consequences of their speech.
Please do tell me what you think freedom of speech is, in your own words, when you are at a keyboard.
In my own words, freedom of speech is an ideal, like the ideal "that all men are created equal". This ideal seeks to liberate human kind from being systematically punished for expressing offensive ideas, because ever so many of the greatest human revelations were profoundly offensive to society at large at their inception.
"I cannot contemplate human affairs, without laughing or crying. I choose to laugh. When People talk of the Freedom of Writing Speaking or thinking, I cannot choose but laugh. No such thing ever existed. No such thing now exists: but I hope it will exist, But it must be hundreds of years after you and I Shall write and Speak no more."
I think we may actually be on the same side, then - my implication was that America is "freedom from persecution," _not_ freedom from criticism and/or private consequence. When I say _private_ consequence, I primarily mean if you say something that the owner of a restaraunt you dine in does not like, you can get kicked out from that private enterprise, but the government cannot stifle your ability to say the words that got you kicked out nor can you go to jail for face legal action.
TL;DR I believe we may be thinking of different ideas of "consequence" :)
Defenders of slavery used that same "private enterprise" line to assert their rights over people; as did restaurant owners 100 years after slavery was abolished to justify kicking out people with offensive skin color.
It was not an existing law, but the ideal "that all men are created equal" which abolishonists and civil rights leaders pointed to in their quest for equality.
Likewise it is the ideal of freedom of expression which we are pointing to now that should protect humans from being banned from the digital town square for expressing offensive ideas.
Nowhere have I seen anything resembling "freedom of speech != freedom from consequences", except from the Church.
After all, heretics and blasphemers were indeed free to say what they wanted to say (they had larynxes, after all), but they were not free from the consequences of their speech.
Please do tell me what you think freedom of speech is, in your own words, when you are at a keyboard.
In my own words, freedom of speech is an ideal, like the ideal "that all men are created equal". This ideal seeks to liberate human kind from being systematically punished for expressing offensive ideas, because ever so many of the greatest human revelations were profoundly offensive to society at large at their inception.
"I cannot contemplate human affairs, without laughing or crying. I choose to laugh. When People talk of the Freedom of Writing Speaking or thinking, I cannot choose but laugh. No such thing ever existed. No such thing now exists: but I hope it will exist, But it must be hundreds of years after you and I Shall write and Speak no more."
-John Adams letter to Thomas Jefferson, 1817
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6790