> I'm really tired of people hiding behind free speech and "but what if someone had something important to say!".

But who is going to decide what we are allowed to say and what not? We all know “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. It’s very easy for someone to “manufacture consent” if you can take all the opponents out.

That "mostly" is doing a lot of work. Why should anyone with an, shall we say innocent opinion have their opinion quashed simply because they are not an expert? Which, by the way, is also a strange requirement, there were plenty of bona fide experts disagreeing with each other during the pandemic, but the experts going against governments promoting lockdowns also had their voices severely limited.

As Mill put it, so eloquently:

> If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.