I would also add that having "consequences" of a legal nature for what you say is NOT free speech.
I strongly disagree; the goal of speech meriting protection by the law is to produce consequences. No law is needed to protect conversation about the color of the sky or what the weather looks like. Controversial speech does require such protections, but that takes the form of prohibiting prior restraint. The government cannot legally prevent you from saying or disseminating your thoughts. Private individuals are more than welcome to refuse to help you amplify your thoughts, a distinction which has new import now that public discourse is online (and thus, due to atrocious planning at all levels of government, private). None of that changes how consequences of speech, legal, illegal, desirable, undesirable, intended and unintended play out.
The standard for prosecution for holding or sharing thoughts, even thoughts which are intensely and widely unpopular, is EXTREMELY high. It's legal to be a racist, a nazi, a communist, or whatever so long as one does not actively incite people to illegal action. Other people may respond very negatively to your public beliefs, but the government cannot prevent you from sharing them or prosecute you for doing so. The fact that one holds such beliefs could legally be used in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity. If a black family has a cross burned in their yard, locals who are known to publicly espouse racist views are going to merit increased suspicion and, if other evidence suggests involvement, inadvertently aid in their own prosecution. If three white guys run down a black guy and then kill him based upon essentially no evidence of wrongdoing, their prior admissions of gross racial bias are absolutely germane to the prosecution. That's not suppression of free speech.