But it seems like having someone else arbitrarily determine what is allowed speech is just as dangerous.
And given that expressing ideas can be dangerous, what is the alternative? How do we decide who gets to vote and who gets freedom of speech? With voting, there are some very practical solutions, for example, no voting rights for welfare recipients ( though even getting that passed would be very difficult ) and with speech, we can draw the line at speech that poses an immediate danger to someone’s safety. But beyond that, where do we go?
Who do you think should have the right to vote? And do you think free speech in America should be given to activists like Lady gaga and to gay activist parades, provided these parades do not ever target children (which of course would be immediate grounds for banning them and arresting anyone who participates).
It's indeed a very difficult question. I don't have a ready answer to that. Nobody does. If history tells us anything, the societies oscillate between absolutism and anarchy, going through every stage in between. The oscillations are caused by the fact that none of those stages are stable; none are acceptable; none are so good that people want to keep them.
Self-rule, of which pure anarchy and more organized forms, like democracy, are part of, is hard. You'd better be good with your gun, or your sword, or your club. Maybe the Sheriff will eventually come to save you - like in a few days, if he even knows about your predicament, but your personal survival depends on you. How many modern men can accept that lifestyle?
That's how authoritarianism finds its way into hearts and minds. It whispers softly "you don't need to worry about big bad Bill the Killer, we will take care of him for you - just let us!" - and people eventually agree. Authoritarian regimes do not ask you to think. They ask you nothing. These days they don't even ask you to work! All they want in return is your silent approval of their authority. The citizen doesn't even want to know what they do in his name. It's an easy life this way; with enough entertainment on TV what else is there to ask for?
But if we end up with a hypothesis that "none of social schemes known to man are stable in the long run and in a large, unsorted population" then what do we have left? Nothing.
Who do you think should have the right to vote?
That question is part of the discussion above. In truest democracies everyone votes, and everyone's vote counts. In strictest authoritarian societies you may or may not vote, but your vote decides nothing, just as Joseph Stalin pointed out. The USA is already firmly at that stage; while it is still possible to eject a few politicians over a few clearly wrong decisions, most of them are safe and sound.
Note also that voting is a complicated process on part of the voter. City-states of ancient Greece were mere villages by today's standards. Everyone knew everyone else personally, for many years. Today we can only vote for people who say who they are. But people will say anything that gets them elected. Honest people will be at disadvantage, and the science of statistics is merciless. A voter must see through the lies; but how many are mentally equipped to do that? How many are interested in truth? How many have access to the information? How many are flooded with misinformation and think they know the truth now? Modern systems of political engineering are very advanced, and they allow sufficient control of the crowd to get the necessary results. Careful selection of candidates that are Twiddledee and Twiddledum's long lost brothers further limits the damage if the people don't get the message. Like in a shell game, you cannot win.
Freedom of speech is also exploited. Everyone is free to voice his opinion from a soap box. But not everyone is invited into TV studios to do the same to millions of viewers. Everyone can form a non-profit to do political work; but some of them get persecuted while others are allowed to function. Do we have freedom of speech then? Not the right to climb onto a soap box, but the right to be heard just as loudly as your opponent is heard?
This is exactly why celebrities can use their position in the society to be heard, whereas private persons cannot. Want to have a gay parade? The city rubberstamps your request. Want to have an anti-gay parade? No, you can't do that - it's hate speech, you raysis! Officer, arrest him!
Artificial attempts to fix the free speech by inverting the abuse are doomed to failure. The free speech is already conditionalized by powers that be. You don't want gays to parade in front of your home on Sundays? Too bad, they have that right, the street is public. Now you want to reverse that rule legally; but you cannot because laws don't allow that. The attempt to fix the injustice would be even more unjust. The only thing you can do is to say "I'm done with this freedom of speech, take it away from everyone" - and the government does just that, per your request... a nice move, isn't it?
We know that democracy requires an educated voter base. The voters must be also generally willing to cooperate. If that rule is not met then you have polarization of the society - exactly what we have today. I'd say democracy in the USA is already dead, just because the voters are unwilling to do their part. People are still going through the motions, but they matter less and less. The same old faces are in Congress, for decades. No new thinking, no new policies, no contact with the people. If the democracy is lost then what's the value of even having freedom of speech? Nobody will hear you; but even if you manage to speak, your words won't affect anything. Voting rights and the freedom of speech are quickly becoming relics of the past. In today's world only selected groups have those freedoms - and only as long as they say what their betters want to hear. That's a very sad state of affairs.