No matter how many times I explain it myself or see others explain it even better, there always seems to be a new crop of ignorant donkeys that don't seem to get it. As a philosphical concept, it simply means the freedom to express oneself as one sees fit. However, it does NOT mean one is absolved of any and all consequences resulting from exercising said freedom. Therefore, discussing the concept in a philosphical vacuum is a very short conversation and of little value. Clearly, it's the consequences that matter. I repeat, it's the consequences that matter. In the United States of America we enjoy some protection from specific consequences of our expression. Namely, no laws can be passed or enforced that restrict what we say. And that's pretty much it folks. There is absolutely no guarantee of access to an audience. So, when a mall owner decides he doesn't want to rent a kiosk to someone because he believes that person's expressions might be bad for business, he is simply exercising his own free market right to do so and is NOT infringing on that someone's freedom of speech. When ESPN fired Rush Limbaugh because they believed not doing so might be bad for business, they were simply exercising their own free market right to do so and were NOT infringing on his freedom of speech. When radio stations blacklisted the Dixie Chicks because they believed that continuing to play their music might be bad for business, they were simply exercising their free market rights and NOT infringing on the Dixie Chicks' freedom of speech. The Kiosk owner, Rush Limbaugh and the Dixie Chicks were all still able to express themselves freely without fear of legal prosecution or incarceration. So please please please, stop making yourself look ignorant by screaming free speech infringment every time someone pays a free market price for expressions that draw negative attention to themselves and those they are in business with. It makes you look like an uneducated dolt.