This is true, and similar to what got people like Adria Richards fired in other scenarios where they've lost the ability to be able to professionally represent their company through their speech alone.
> Anyway, you're essentially arguing that free speech means freedom from consequences, and it just doesn't.
Yes, but keep in mind that there's a difference between individual freedom of speech among individuals and what society does to individuals. IMO people should modulate the consequences they are free to impose based on the principle that free speech is valued.
There's a reason Rockwell's famous painting exhibiting freedom of speech is a man standing in a crowded town hall meeting. Whatever that man says, he will have to still live with those people afterwards, and so everyone involved will have to understand their part in what "freedom of speech" really means in America.
Of course the government can't ban people from ostracizing someone based on their speech. The point is that in a free society (as opposed to a free governance), the people at large shouldn't need to be told by the government not to ostracize someone who speaks their mind.
Your boss imposing consequences for your stupid tongue is one thing. But should it be right for your boss to froth up a mob to go after you, as long as they don't break the law?