My position, Andrew, is that I disagree with the apparent underlying philosophy in her statement. And if you insist, she is technically right. The first amendment is about government. I heard that argument many times, so it is not important who she is and what she meant.
My position is that the concept of free speech is so important, that it transcends technicalities. I believe free speech should be cherished, encouraged and protected by the society as a whole and by every member of the society, from attacks wherever they might come from, not just from government. While I respect individual rights to react to someone's free speech by boycotting them, I also consider organized actions to destroy someone for speaking their mind a form of social terrorism.
Take, for example, the former Mozilla CEO: he was destroyed for excising his civic duty, i.e., to "publicly support or oppose an issue or policy" (verbatim from the government's Civic Lessons). This is a frightening prospect: that people are afraid to speak their mind and take part in political processes in fear from "economic consequences." Remember, it is a civic duty, while a public debate on an issue of policy is going on, to take a stand. That stand might be to support or oppose. It isn't democracy, or a civilized society, to club to death those who "lost" in public debate once the issue is settled one way or the other. I repeat: this is a frightening prospect and will ultimately lead to a totalitarian society with a single PC truth on every issue. Trust me, I am coming from one of those.