"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences"

[AGA]

Do you agree with the above quote?

[AGA]

Depends on what the consequences are. Social alienation? Sure. Government intervention? Absolutely not.

For example, getting a college acceptance rescinded because of a racist statement.

[AGA]

Depends on what the consequences are. Social alienation? Sure. Government intervention? Absolutely not.

For example, getting a college acceptance rescinded because of a racist statement.

If it's an institution that takes government money, it has no business going something like that.

What if it's a completely private college? Would it mean that college doesn't respect free speech?

[AGA]

Anyway, this isn't really a statement you can "agree" or "disagree" with.  But those who employ this line of reasoning tacitly acknowledge their only fidelity is to some overly-legalistic interpretation of the First Amendment and not the actual values of tolerance and pluralism it exists to protect.

That's what I'm trying to get at. Do people here think free speech is only a legal concept or a broader ideal that can be suppressed by any entity? The quote doesn't make sense with the latter definition.