I usually think of free speech in this context to mean freedom from state intervention. The state shouldn't be allowed to treat you differently from others because of what you say.

Here we're talking about how the public's treatment of Mozilla and Eich have changed because of their speech. This is perfectly rational.

To give you a counter example. If we accept that "having a right to it" means never "suffering consequences" then I'm never allowed to form an opinion of a person based on the things they say. I have to think "well he said all those racist things but I've never seen him in a KKK uniform so my opinion is still neutral".

TL;DR On issues of free speech we, the people, can make people suffer consequences as we see fit. The state cannot.