Free speech issues can be approached on several different levels. One familiar approach focuses on the most basic reasons for protecting freedom of speech in the first place. Another, a more particularized approach, focuses on the judicial tests used to resolve specific kinds of free speech cases. There is, however, a large and important, if underexplored, middle range between these two extremes. This Article explores the value of "mid-range" free speech theory and focuses on the degree of diversity of speech perspectives that is realistically available to the public. This Article will argue that expanding the diversity of voices realistically available generally reduces some important political risks, including the risks of committing serious errors of public policy, as well as failing to recognize or acknowledge, and then correct, those errors. In the area of free speech and in various other contexts, diversity and risk- reduction go hand in hand.