The irony is that speech restrictions are most likely to harm the common people that are advocating for them, over the long term. If they are advocating for th

The irony is that speech restrictions are most likely to harm the common people that are advocating for them, over the long term. If they are advocating for them because and while they are vulnerable, then it stands to reason that less vulnerable people will eventually dictate how the laws are applied. The same officials who think that "whataboutism", aka the call to ignore unequal application of the law, is a positive argument are the same officials that want censorship. That isn't a coincidence, and the same resultant risk to the population is shared between the two strategies.