> the absolute lack of self-censorship is cacophony where nothing is ever decided

I don't believe this, and I've engaged in processes where this was not the case (albeit on a relatively small scale).

Requirements for effective consensus without self-censorship are:

1. a strict, ordered and budgeted process for airing views. Your cacophony only occurs without such process (such cacophony also leads to a different form of censorship, simply by "survival of the loudest").

2. a deliberative decision making process: the best way to alienate (and encourage self-censorship in) someone is to assign finality to decisions they oppose. It's also the best way to delay decisions. Controversial decisions can be expedited if there isn't perceived to be a barrier to reconsidering them later.

Or to put it a different way: people who don't agree with a direction an org takes are more likely to remain committed to that org if their later "I told you so"s are taken on board.