Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequence.
This is double speak. If the government throws you in jail for saying something, you could say the same thing. You had freedom of speech but not freedom from consequence. You're distorting the meaning of freedom of speech.
Which is why we have the first amendment, and why it covers government only.
Or that no one who disagrees with a particular point of view should be able to express that disagreement?
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence when that consequence is also an expression of free speech.