Freedom of the press is typically considered one of the tenets of a democracy. The vote becomes meaningless if voters cannot be informed, which includes having access to all possible points of view.

Again, liberalism.

If a supermajority opposes free press, it would be undemocratic to force it upon them.

Sure there is. What hope do citizens have in exercising the right to vote if their leaders control what they can and cannot read and hear?

If the leaders do so based on majority opinion, that is democratic.

Too many people - usually Americans - confuse liberal democracy with democracy.

Liberal democracy is a phrase for a reason - and the liberal comes first for a reason!

If the leaders install autocracy based on majority opinion is that democratic? Because you're essentially describing the government of Iran at that point, led by a Supreme Leader who cannot be voted out, e.g. a very undemocratic system.

Just because people vote for something doesn't make the thing they voted for democratic. Historically people have voted to install a non-democratic government before.

Yes, democracy can vote to end itself and replace itself with autocracy.

If not, it's not democracy! You're deciding to overrule the demos and enforce your minority opinion!

I know it seems like pedantry but we shouldn't confuse liberalism with democracy.

But the resulting autocracy is not democratic. People voting is democratic but what they vote for may not be