Why does it have to be either/or? Because principles only count when they're uncomfortable to uphold. A principle that is only exercised in defense of the alr

Why does it have to be either/or? Because principles only count when they're uncomfortable to uphold. A principle that is only exercised in defense of the already-palatable is hollow and worthless. There can be exceptions to principle, but each one is an encroachment that rightly raises questions whether the person making the exception is shirking responsibility. The most palatable cases are when both principles co-exist in a way that they minimize the amount they compromise eachother's purpose. For example: A defense of copyright creating a limit to free speech generally rests on an argument that such a restriction doesn't undermine purpose of free speech. The argument assets that free speech is primarily about sharing ideas that are contemporaneously unpalatable, or disruptive/subversive to existing power structures. Copyright doesn't prevent a speaker from expressing ideas also expressed in copywritten works, and it even offers many ways in which a speaker could quote a protected work verbatim. On the other hand, structuring bounds of speech as "free, except when I really don't like it" is harder to defend as a commitment to free speech. It is counter to the very purpose of free speech to defend the unpalatable. There is certainly an argument to be made here that a limit both has a good reason and minimizes the amount of speech it preempts, but nobody is presenting one. And until they make that case, and make it very convincing, others are right to consider it an abandonment of principle.