Motting

To mott is to use the motte-and-bailey fallacy in an argument.

The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial (the "bailey").The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position. Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte) or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).

A: Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of that speech.

B: That's not true. If there is a consequence to any action, that action is not free.

A: Well, I am free to call you a cunt, and the consequences are that you can insult me back. Ipso facto, free speech with consequences.

B. Insulting you would be a consequent, not a consequence. Consequences are consequents of consequence. Your conflating the two is motting.