> "I have the correct views held by the establishment, so I'm not worried about it."

If the establishment's views are strongly codified and checks and balances are in place to maintain them, is that so bad?

Yes, because you don't know what you don't know, and you won't find out if you don't allow dissent.

"Almost free speech" doesn't necessarily mean dissent isn't allowed

Almost. Who decides what "almost" is?

Hopefully the electorate.

"Dissent as long as a centralized authority permits it" doesn't sound great to me!

How is that different from "free speech as long as a centralized authority permits it" like you have now, besides being more specific?

Almost free speech isn't acceptable.

That is the question being discussed in the thread where you are replying.

If existing reality seems to "work", is it so bad to exclude non-establishment innovations, while the larger world/markets continue to compete and innovate?

Obviously. It’s just that I believe the people that would be/are locked up under the current laws (and the laws in my 30ish years of life) deserve what they get.

Conversely, I believe there are a lot of people in the US walking around freely that deserve to be locked up.