Archived version: https://archive.ph/MbUXN
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20231130090524/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67574396
Archived version: https://archive.ph/MbUXN
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20231130090524/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67574396
Free speech is about protecting people from a government response to their speech, and even that carves out exceptions for incitement to violence, yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc. I know you mention government bans of certain language, but it misses the mark of what we have defined free speech to be, which is protection from government reprisal.
I have to disagree with the notion that we don’t have free speech because people face consequences for what they say. Those consequences may be an inducement to behave in a social cohesive or expected way, but even if you wanted to protect people from that, it would require infringing on others rights. The advertisers have a right not to be associated with Musk. I have a right to dissociate from racists. The only way to protect racists from these consequences would be to infringe on my right not to associate with them.