Various collapsed democracies can testament that defining away the free part of free speech to be a path to authoritarianism, and the first step towards collapse is punishing opinions that disagrees with dogma (e.g Venezuela). In the end it leads to a less efficient country driven by dogma instead of progress.

I think this line of thinking stems from the belief that democracy is the default state, and that it can withstand suppressing voices that disagrees with the dogma someone fights for.