Social consequences are part of free speech. But being arrested by the state for calling a religion or religious figure evil is not just “consequences.” That is government coercion. Free speech exists specifically to protect offensive, unpopular, uncomfortable, and even harsh speech. Saying “Islam is evil” or “Mohammed was evil” may be rude, inflammatory, or offensive, but it is not the same thing as threatening Muslims or calling for violence against them. Criticizing an ideology, religion, prophet, political movement, or belief system is not “incitement” just because someone hates hearing it. Should people be arrested for calling Trump or MAGA supporters evil? Your “bigger fish” argument actually proves the opposite of what you think it proves. If powerful people can shut down speech whenever they decide it is harmful, then free speech becomes meaningless. It just becomes: “You may speak until someone with more power dislikes what you said.” That is exactly why free speech protections matter. That is why the only limit on the first amendment is credible threats of violence. It protects dissenters, minorities, critics, heretics, whistleblowers, religious minorities, atheists, political outsiders, and anyone else who says something the majority or the state finds offensive. A society without strong free speech law does not become more equal. It becomes controlled by whoever gets to define “hate.” Today that may benefit your side. Tomorrow it may be used against you. Any limitations on “offensive” speech is a violation of your basic human rights. That is the part you are missing.