Whilst I concur with the overall thrust of what you are saying here, I actually think the sentiment "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" is dangerous to chuck around without important qualifiers, as it begs the following question: Who gets to decide the consequences of free speech? If it’s individuals with, as you say, the right to be offended, offer rebuttal, or ignore you, that’s one thing. If it’s the government legislating consequences, we’re in serious trouble.

For example, the above statement could be applied to Nazi Germany. Speak out against Hitler all you like, and there will be consequences. That's an extreme example, but I'm sure you take my point. There are people who have (in my opinion, unfairly) lost jobs in the UK because they have spoken their opinion on certain issues upon which a common consensus is far from reached. Some of these people have taken their employers to court, and won their cases - rightly, in my opinion.

Is this simply the "consequence" of free speech? This kind of witch hunt mob mentality authoritarianism prohibiting legitimate discourse (or cancel culture, if you like) seems to originate largely from certain parts of America, but thanks to the joys of the internet is now poisoning the UK and elsewhere.

To be clear: Regardless of my opinion of Meghan Markle (I'm not a fan, generally speaking), I think what Jeremy Clarkson said was ridiculous, and although clearly exaggeration (re: the Game of Thrones reference) anyone with a half a brain could have predicted the outraged reaction. It was a stupid and loathsome thing to say and a stupid and loathsome thing for The Sun to print.

On the other hand, I am profoundly grateful that we live in a country where such things can be said and printed freely. I may hate what is said, but I'd much rather tolerate a vile gutter press and ignore their pestilential drivel than live in a country that suppresses free speech. Anything that erodes this is cause for concern, because as I said at the beginning of this comment, who gets to decide the consequences? What gives them that right? What happens in the grey areas?

Also, for those who inevitably bring up the term "hate speech", I believe there is actually no such thing, and it is simply confused with incitement or prejudicial action. For example, I may say I hate the religion of Islam (free speech), but if I say I hate Islam and we should persecute Muslims, that is incitement, and therefore prosecutable under existing British laws. The same applies if I behave in a prejudicial manner. There's a common sense difference that authoritarian mobs like to deliberately blur, in an attempt to give their argument credibility.

Do I think what Clarkson said is incitement? Not really. Again, it is clearly exaggeration, however horrid.