You will find no greater defender of the Bill of Rights than your humble scribe. Having said that, I am repeatedly struck by how many people are ignorant of what "freedom of speech" as defined in the First Amendment to the Constitution really means.
Case in point: Miss California, vying for the Miss USA crown, states on national TV that she is opposed on principle to the concept of same-sex marriage, and she subsequently comes in second in the pageant. Immediately, right-wingers and evangelical types begin crying that her "free speech rights" were violated. Oh, so she's in jail now? No? Ordered to pay a fine, perhaps? Still no? In fact, the only possible consequence of making a complete ass of herself (and even this is difficult to prove) is that, instead of winning a beauty pageant, she came in second. Oh, boo hoo!
"Freedom of speech" means that, in these United States, anyone can say any fool thing that comes into his head - with a few obvious exceptions, such as shouting "movie" in a crowded firehouse - and not have to be afraid that the government will prosecute/persecute him for it. It is difficult perhaps to contemplate how radical a concept this was in 1789, but I can assure you that, at the time, political prisoners languished in fetid jails throughout Europe precisely for having made public statements that offended nothing more than the monarch's narcissism. Even today, there are many places on Earth - China among them - where criticizing the government will turn you into a "political prisoner," if you are lucky enough to not simply disappear without a trace.
What "freedom of speech" does not mean is some sort of guarantee that you can call your boss a colossal fart in an office e-mail and not be fired, or that you can declare the Holocaust a "hoax" and keep your faculty appointment. The First Amendment does not promise that inflammatory speech will have no consequences - merely that the government will not charge you with a crime for it. It certainly does not guarantee that a physically attractive young woman will win a beauty pageant after spewing ugly, religious-based bigotry.
As a contrast: When the Republican National Convention came to New York in 2004, Mayor Bloomberg set up designated "free speech zones" located miles away from the convention, and ordered police to arrest anyone who tried to protest anywhere they might be visible to convention-goers. That, my friends, was a direct violation of the First Amendment; or, as one protester correctly shouted when a member of New York's Finest explained that he was being arrested because he was not in a designated free speech zone, "I thought the whole damn country is supposed to be a 'free speech zone!'" So it is, dear readers, so it is. Bloomberg's "punishment" for this unconscionable trampling of First Amendment rights was to have his equally indefensible demand that the city charter be amended to allow him a third term be granted by an ineffectual City Council.
But I digress.
Miss California stated that, although she is convinced that she lost the Miss USA pageant because of her anti-gay/lesbian remarks, she would make them again, because, in her words, she felt it was "more important to be Biblically correct than politically correct." "Biblically correct" - could there be a bigger oxymoron? Isn't that as nonsensical as being "virginally pregnant?" See, what I just did there was exercise my First Amendment right to free speech. I cannot be prosecuted for making those comments - but I expect a few pissed-off Christians to say unkind things about me. C'est la vi!