It’s not foolishly phrased. The limits of the consequences are implicit by using “freedom of speech”. It feels more like you are just foolishly interpreting the statement. The statement doesn’t even pertain to the article in the post.

I’ve only ever seen it being used correctly to point out that speech having social consequences does not mean you don’t have freedom of speech. If someone says “oh woe is me, why can’t I say the n word anymore”, I don’t think going into a 30 minute tirade about the intricacies of freedom of speech is going to work out for you.

Let me help you out there.

The consequences in this statement will exclude stuff like imprisonment or illegal actions, as it would otherwise not constitute free speech. What is meant by consequences in that statement is social consequences, like being ignored, being “cancelled” or maybe being called names, like bigot.

For some reason people like to lament that “you aren’t allowed to say this bigoted thing anymore”. This statement rightly points out that you are, but people are also allowed to call you an asshole for doing it.