I have always found the phrase ‘free speech has consequences’ deeply disturbing. The only consequence that the exercise of free speech should have is more speech. Disagreement, debate, ridicule, mockery: these are perfectly legitimate consequences of free speech. They’re good consequences, in fact, in that they ignite debate.

But getting sacked? Being No Platformed? Being harassed? Being subjected to constant abuse, as someone like JK Rowling often is? Only those of an authoritarian bent would view these as legitimate ‘consequences’ of free speech. In these contexts, ‘consequence’ really means punishment. ‘Free speech has consequences’ translates into: ‘You can say it if you want to, but we will destroy you for doing so’. ‘Consequence culture’ is a fancy term for censure and intolerance.

And now the Iranian regime is at it. If Rushdie hadn’t crossed certain ‘red lines’, he’d have been fine, it is saying. All he’s experiencing is the consequences of his own speech.

The ‘consequences’ promoted by Western radicals might be less dramatic and less violent than the ‘consequences’ promoted by Iranian theocrats and other Islamists. But they’re bound together by a creepy belief that it is legitimate to punish people for expressing themselves, whether by hurting their bank balances or hurting their bodies. Enough. Respond to speech with speech, not your life-ruining or life-ending metaphorical ‘consequences’.