why do people confuse free speech with "the ability to say what you think anywhere you go"?

free speech is protection from your government, limited to words that do not incite harm

free speech does not protect you from the consequences of what you say between you and another private party

if someone dislikes what you have to say and thinks you're an ass for saying it the way you did, you have no right to complain about being blocked

@vahnj free speech is an ideology. first amenment / free press protections of law apply to government, but free speech means in it's purest form the ability to say whatever you want without fear of your ability to say it being taken away. The
protections against governmental censorship. one from that ideology, but are not equivilant. the background for this philosophy lies in the Enlightenment and the challenges that people then faced.

@Irick you're kind of ignoring the whole point of my post. nobody has to listen to people who want to talk about their ideas, especially if they're being hateful, and they don't have a right to be heard.

@vahnj you don't have to, but someone who believes in the liberal definition of free speech would argue that is a moral failing. like I said, difference in world view. A middle ground probably exists, but without understanding the fundimental differences between the two stances common ground would be difficult to find. For instance, we could probably agree that attacking someone with speech is not conducive to conversation.

@Irick you're still ignoring the point of my post

which is funny because that's exactly the kind of thing i'm pointing out is important in my post