Freedom of speech, involves the government not restricting speech people make (a right granted by the government), as long as it doesn't affect the rights or reputation of others. Exceptions mainly include,
Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".
What is noticeably missing from this list is stuff like, limitations to what you can say at the workplace. Because it's a totally different topic. Someone already has freedom of speech to say whatever they want about their workplace, and repercussions against that have nothing to do with free speech, since again, they already have free speech. You can't both have and not have free speech, it's a term that has a specific meaning.
But some have used the term to apply to such cases anyways, such as with Jordan Peterson. He claims that he should be able to say whatever he wants, and the organization he's associated with should be compelled to continue sustaining his license, no matter what he says, as otherwise this would be a breach of his free speech (also, no matter what documents he signed about maintaining ethical standards and a code of conduct as part of the organization).
This reminds one of complaints of "cancel culture", as if free speech should extend to compelling people to do business with you (or like allow them to write on a website that is maintained with privately owned computers). If such complaints aren't in bad faith, they would be trying to extend this to all circumstances where what people say causes them to lose business. Where would the line be drawn then.
If this question seems in bad faith, while yes I would consider such viewpoints as compelling the actions of others as something to do with free speech as quite off, and are done with naivety or bad faith themselves, apparently such views have enough support. So if there are compelling arguments for such viewpoints, I would like to hear them. Maybe there are exceptions that would straighten things out of what free speech means exactly, if not just legally protected speech (keep in mind people who seem to freely use the term 'free speech', make no distinction between them, clearly trying to lump them together).