Modern addendum is "You can have Freedom Of Speech but no guarantee for Freedom After speech."
Edit: Just to clarify, It is not my opinion. It is Social media warriors warning people "Free speech is not free of consequences"
This is absolutely true though? I fail to see your point.
You are free to say what you want, and other people are free to criticize you for it. If you don't support the right to criticize, you don't support free speech.
In general, the statement CANNOT be true, because the chilling effect explicitly suppresses free speech -- being a result of consequences. Ergo, consequence (of a particular type) is in fact suppression of free speech.
What a ridiculous hyperbole of what it "usually" means.
No, the 1st Amendment is the right to not be arrested for speaking (in the United States). Free Speech is a philosophy that would absolutely cover not committing physical violence against someone for what they say. Violence in response to speech is probably a good starting point for the definition of unfree speech.
This still doesn’t mean that speech without consequences is possible. The grandparent comment mentioned the loss of a livelihood as an example (unsure exactly what it refers to but could be e.g boycotts).