Well sure, everything sounds awful if you remove the context.
The context is someone is saying anti-Semitic things and others don't have to go along with it or deal with their business.
"Do you believe speech should have consequences" is just the type of spin political parties pay for research to manipulate the masses and will always sound murky or confusing or dangerous.
I don't think our culture is strong or modern enough to have knives out for antisemitism that won't eventually be used against communism, dissent, pacifism or any of the other things that have been repressed far more stringently at dark times in American history than antisemitism ever has been. Actually, it's more likely that these tools if accepted will be used for antisemitism than against it. I am a little worried by how quickly people forget that antisemitic industrial magnates are a more predictable norm in this country than mysteriously benevolent ones... in fact this whole discussion is about someone who's accused of being one. Who's really going to have their voice cut off in the long run, outvoted minorities or the "moral majority"? It's like a version of "think of the children" with the twist that it's probably going to be used against the people it's claimed to be there to protect.
The context is someone is saying anti-Semitic things and others don't have to go along with it or deal with their business.
"Do you believe speech should have consequences" is just the type of spin political parties pay for research to manipulate the masses and will always sound murky or confusing or dangerous.