[noduerme]

> So impeding the speech of two people is a better outcome than impeding the speech of none? I don't get it.

I mean, it's not a better strategy and it's not right - what I'm trying to say is that impeding one person's speech leads to impeding another person's speech, and that's how you end up with totalitarianism, regardless of who's in control.

The trouble is that whoever speaks loudest never respects the mechanism that allowed them to speak in the first place, or extends that right to anyone else.

So as to what leads to a better outcome, I'd say the results aren't in yet.