>Assuming a well-functioning democracy, they have whatever rights The populace wants them to have, including deciding what types of speech are acceptable.
So... mob rule.
That seems like a very stable and restrained society. I can't think of any obvious problem with that, or any time in, say, German history (to name a particularly egregious example) where mob rule run amok destroyed most of the Continent. Or Russian history. Or Cambodian history. Or Chinese history. Or...
The only currently reliable way to defuse mob rule is to decentralize. This is done by passing laws that say that society can't stop its individual members from doing certain things. And while this does lead to a very polluted commons (and sometimes isn't sufficient on its own to prevent the mob from taking over), it also leads to an exceptionally stable society simply because the "we should gang up and hurt/ban the people we hate" reflex is impotent outside of one's chosen groups and the hands-off attitude becomes ingrained in the people after a while.
The right to be wrong is important, because once the mob decides that your life itself is wrong (or rather, the closer the local Overton Window is to that idea- the more entitled a society is to restrict its members, the closer it is to this by definition) you're in trouble as soon as the mob hits a rough spot. It might advance faster at times, but it's just too unstable.
While mob rule can be problem it has long been the 'democratic bogeyman' to justify why oligarchs and dictators must retain power even if what they want isn't remotely close to being unreasonable like not facing famine when it can be prevented. I'm not sure that decentralization works for stopping it - just limiting their demesne to one small town where you could be lynched instead of a whole country.
The system of constitutional rights of some sort has worked pretty well to excellent for limiting that purpose especially when combined with a judiciary willing to look ahead. The issue it helps prevent is the same as the mob rule example although it can also happen with more 'restrained mob rule' situations in a set up for a turnkey dictatorship that allows for absolute power in just a few steps.
The 'democratic institutions' and societal structure seems to be a factor of how resistant from degrading as well, how likely a transition to democracy is to stick and not have travesties in the attempt and how the aftermath of a dictatorship is handled. It would be interesting to see if there can be a good qualitative breakdown here as there are for signs of rising fascism and dictatorships.
So... mob rule. That seems like a very stable and restrained society. I can't think of any obvious problem with that, or any time in, say, German history (to name a particularly egregious example) where mob rule run amok destroyed most of the Continent. Or Russian history. Or Cambodian history. Or Chinese history. Or...
The only currently reliable way to defuse mob rule is to decentralize. This is done by passing laws that say that society can't stop its individual members from doing certain things. And while this does lead to a very polluted commons (and sometimes isn't sufficient on its own to prevent the mob from taking over), it also leads to an exceptionally stable society simply because the "we should gang up and hurt/ban the people we hate" reflex is impotent outside of one's chosen groups and the hands-off attitude becomes ingrained in the people after a while.
The right to be wrong is important, because once the mob decides that your life itself is wrong (or rather, the closer the local Overton Window is to that idea- the more entitled a society is to restrict its members, the closer it is to this by definition) you're in trouble as soon as the mob hits a rough spot. It might advance faster at times, but it's just too unstable.