A thoughtful perspective that reflects mine. I generally side with the may-hate-what-you-say-but-will-defend-to-the-death-you're-right-to-say-it point of view. But inciting violence is different, and I think common sense divides the two. Saying you hate a marginalised group is one thing (however repugnant that may be). Saying you hate a marginalised group and think we should go and burn their houses down is quite another.

One thing I don't care for is the parroting of "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences". I don't think the majority of the people who repeat that have thought through the implications. Whose consequences are we talking about? Government consequences? For example, you could have spoken out against Hitler in Nazi Germany, but there would certainly have been consequences. What about consequences with one's employer? Is it right and fair that, say, having an unfashionable view on transgender issues means you cannot reasonably undertake your job of, say, being a nurse? Is it right that person should face "consequences" and be deprived of their livelihood, punishing them and their dependents for not towing the politically correct line concerning an issue on which by no means there is general consensus? Should a university professor lose their job for similar reasons? Should all debate on this be stifled? Or should we have a free and fair exchange of views, without fear of "consequences"?

I'm not offering an answer to any of those questions. I'm merely pointing out that those who use this statement have, in my experience, rarely thought it through. I have a similar view on people who parrot "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear". Tell that to anyone who lived under the Stasi in East Germany during the Cold War.