Allow me to elucidate what I mean. Let's look at your three last words, "consequences should be"... especially the next-to-last word, "should".
"Should" is one thing.... what is likely to happen in reality is another.
Nobody should be murdered or beaten half to death for expressing strong reservations about the quality of Harley Davidson motorcycles, at any place and any time. However, doing so in a blatantly provocative manner at a biker bar at 3AM is likely to result in grave bodily harm, regardless of what "should" happen.
...and I should have known better.
The gal in the hole-in-the-wall bar at 3am drunk doing a striptease in front of four remaining scruffy drunks is actually drawn from a real incident about twenty-odd years ago. SHOULD she have been raped? Of course not. But she was, and it was a predictable outcome. It was irresponsible because she should have been able to predict that she was taking a terrible risk.
This in no way excuses those who attacked her, of course. They should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and IIRC most of them were.
This doesn't change the fact that her actions leading up to same were sheer Jackassery, because what happened was entirely predictable.... just as the consequences of me yelling Harley Davidson sucks in a biker bar at 3AM are entirely predictable. "Should" will not change the outcome, other than "should have known better".
We have freedom of speech in this country.... I SHOULD be able to express my feelings about Harley Davidson anywhere without fear of violent response.... but should doesn't matter, because I know better than to do it in a biker bar at 3AM.
That's our problem... we've gotten so that we think our RIGHT to do something excuses us from applying common sense about where, when and how we exercise that right, in light of pragmatic realities.