<i>"Clearly you did not."</i><p>I did, and I found it unconvincing.  You are representing the mere discussion of free-speech principles as absolutist and fanatical.  If this is not towards the end of something you believe is undermined by someone else's free speech, and it is not intended to provoke, then it is a puzzling misrepresentation.<p>As it is, I believe the involvement of people with different degrees of attachment to principles is a useful thing.  The more compromising people buffer the excesses of the stalwarts, and the stalwarts in turn help keep them honest.