Does Freedom of Speech imply freedom from consequences?

One would think...

imagine that! Cap'n Jack using logic & reason... one would almost think he was talking to adults.

Sgt Wayne Wood - You know, finding good and stimulating adult conversation is often hard. But several on RP help me get my fix of adult conversation. If one is going to speak one must take ownership of their words good, bad, or ugly. Childlike adults deflect while real (i.e., mature) adults engage. Humm..............!!!!

SP5 Peter Keane - The reason for that, however, was not that the 1st Amendment protected you from the consequences of your speech. You simply had a tolerant boss.

More concretely- you can not yell fire in a crowded building without punishment. You can't lie about someone with out possible slander charges, etc. As my Da always side- "Say what you mean, Mean what you say and do it with respect."

Suppose we put it this way: most Americans drive automobiles. Driving is a freedom we enjoy, and everyone loves the freedom of the highway. As long as we follow the societal rules laid out for us (regarding safety, speeding, taking care of the vehicle, and etc) we have no problems. As soon as we engage in drunk driving at high speeds, there is bound to be an unsavory incident in which harm is done to ourselves or others. As Americans we do enjoy freedom of speech, however when that "speech" become reckless, as in reckless driving, there ARE CONSEQUENCES, many of which were not intended.

Freedom of speech does have its limits and consequences as their are all kinds of SCOUS decisions giving guidance on what limits free speech has and what penalties can occure. such as Abrams v. United States (1919)

The First Amendment did not protect printing leaflets urging to resist the war effort, calling for a general strike, and advocating violent revolution.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)

The First Amendment did not protect “fighting words” which, by being said, cause injury or cause an immediate breach of the peace.

United States v. O’Brien (1968)

The First Amendment did not protect burning draft cards in protest of the Vietnam War as a form of symbolic speech.

Virginia v. Hicks (2003)

Richmond could ban non-residents from public housing complexes if the non-residents did not have “a legitimate business or social purpose” for being there. The trespass policy was not overbroad and did not infringe upon First Amendment rights.

Morse v. Frederick (2007)

The First Amendment did not protect a public school student’s right to display a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. While students have the right to engage in political speech, the right was outweighed by the school’s mission to discourage drug use.