Pretty good. Main critique I would make is that it seems a tad unfocused. There is a consistent train of thought for the point you are actually making, but the point you are pretending to make is unfocused.

For instance, in the “One may argue… …but at what cost?” part, you don’t really make it super clear what the cost is. Or make a consistent argument before and after that makes it super clear what the cost is. The straight reading of this has the author say a lot about why no free speech is bad, but they don’t really say why free speech is good.

If both your satirical voice and your straight voice are focused the essay reads a lot easier, takes less effort to understand.

The admiral in charge of the Pacific campaign would have stripped him of command if he was allowed to. Everyone competent hated him.

It’s more than just that, it makes people hard to predict in ways that are frustrating. Like, they will make bizzare and extreme decisions because of whatever nonsense they believe, but not very often. Just often enough you can’t trust them, not often enough you can figure out the rules.

So it’s just a constant source of anxiety, when will the day come that it happens.