agree with your vision, but the risk (and opportunity) is associated with every act of expression, in particular when divergent from the status quo. From just a game theory perspective, it doesnt have sense to prosecute a majority, and even if in future the world around would change spin, its still so ineffective prosecute a previous-majority.

So express something associated to an identity is an investment with risks and opportunities, the more divergent it is from majority, the more are risks and opportunities.

The act of not-speech and not populate an identity with acts of public expressions is the safest near 0 risks but also 0 opportunity.

Sometimes decide to not-speech is itself so eloquent and is itself an act of expression, but in reality in a pragmatic way, its nearly impossible to really prosecute/reward silence IMO.