You would not be imprisoned.

You could at least try the "fire in a crowded theater argument." Though even that isn't truly limited today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

Imprisonment isn't the only limiting factor in free speech. Direct or indirect financial impact works well too (e.g. you'll miss your flight because we deem your opinion suspicious and have to investigate you).

You won't be charged with a crime. In France you could be: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/french-law-treats-d...

This is a non-trivial difference.

You wouldn't be charged, but you'd suffer consequences. You'd peobablt miss your flight because your opinion is considered dangerous and needs to be investigated, and maybe you even end up on one of many no-fly lists.

Your second concept is something that every human believes in, whether you want to accept that or not. We're selfish by nature. We choose who we like and who we don't like.

Are you referencing to the "we're better than you?" - then I have to disagree, strongly. Most people I meet can differentiate between personal preference and objective superiority. None of the people I know well enough to say would argue that the country they live in is "the best" or "number one". They like it there, but have their eyes open enough to see that other nations solve some problems better,and that there is no absolute "best country".