>What makes it a democracy is that all members of society participate in that conversation. Freely. Anything less is mere tyranny.

I guess the keyword there is „that“, right? Freedom of speech should not be restricted if it helps to support the democracy, but OTHER conversations are different matter. As I said, freedom of speech is not absolute and is checked by other freedoms and rights.

To suggest that any conversation is more deserving of a guarantee of sincerity than any other seems bad.

Should we assume that there is an invisible man between us, transforming our words? That seems really bad to me.

Freedom of speech is foundational for other rights. Take that away, and the other rights might as well not exist.

This is not correct. Nobody takes it away. It is limited by other rights through the laws that explain when and how the rights should be balanced.

Talk of "balances between rights" always ends up in restrictions on liberty. Communitarianism sounds possibly workable until you start to realize that those making the laws you mention (if you're lucky to get them instead of vague guidelines, and then Katie bar the door) and those adjudicating the laws will only decide on the side of whatever benefits them and their cronies. That's taking away freedom of speech, that's taking away all sorts of rights. Liberty is too precious to leave it to politicians and bureaucrats.

> What makes it a democracy is that all members of society participate in that conversation. Freely. Anything less is mere tyranny.

Are bot accounts paid for by an external part (e.g. foreign government agency or multinational company), which 24/7 post inflammatory (not illegal) and bad-faith augments (not illegal) in a conversation part of that society?

So prisoners having no internet access makes a society a mere tyranny?

I think you should rethink your criteria.