Do you recognize that phrase by any chance? I've been seeing it a lot lately. It has been used as justification to enter into armed conflict for over a century, but now is gaining prominence in the space of free speech.

I'm seeing arguments that censorship is essential to keep the world safe for democracy. Without censorship, we are being told, the path to totalitarianism is open wide, and all but inevitable as the insufferably stupid masses can't help but be persuaded by "dangerous misinformation". I think this is an inversion of reality. I believe that the most necessary condition of an authoritarian or totalitarian regime is the elimination of free speech. There is a linguistic game being played that is more persuasive than it ought to be. Call speech whatever you want, it doesn't give anyone within the United States authority to infringe upon 1st amendment rights. If "dangerous" speech isn't allowed, we have lost our most fundamental and necessary right to preserve all others, for who decides what is "dangerous"?

For those of us serving in the U.S. military and veterans, we didn't take an oath to "make the world safe for democracy", we took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. If the ideological enemies of liberty want to redefine words in order to castigate those of us committed to upholding our oaths, then they openly advocate for lawlessness in doing so. Free and open discourse is required by law, and a lot of consideration went into drafting that law.

To go one step further, I would argue that those attempting to frame censorship as critical in the preservation of democracy do not intend to do anything of the sort. They intend to ensure that their preferred political candidates remain in elected office and that their preferred agendas are written, executed and upheld. Should a popular election produce an outcome not desired by such individuals, the certainty that misinformation and stupidity of the masses is the cause is telling. In circumstance like this, I like to go back to the origin of the argument.

In this case, the argument that America needs to "make the world safe for democracy" came from one Edward Bernays. From looking at his life's work, I think the central theme is that if you want a particular outcome, you need to manipulate the stupid, unthinking masses to come to the "correct" conclusions. In the case of Bernays, increasing the consumption of cigarettes is a prominent example of a desired outcome that required nudging to achieve.

To see an example of the kinds of arguments champions of 1st amendment rights are up against, see here: https://www.democracyandme.org/the-danger-of-disinformation-and-anti-intellectualism-in-todays-society/

For background on Bernays, his wikipedia page is decent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays