>If you believe in the principles of free speech you must also defend the speech of those whom you disagree with. The problem is that some people don't at all

>If you believe in the principles of free speech you must also defend the speech of those whom you disagree with. The problem is that some people don't at all - either because they don't think the benefits outweigh the costs (quite a common point of view), or because such a freedom runs against religious dogma and religious law (the view to which Macron is responding), or because they think freedom of speech in its purest form, at least, is a dogma that is hard to justify philosophically (such people know what liberalism is, but reject it for one reason or another - they're not ignorant, and they publish their arguments, just as speech-defenders like Locke and Judge Easterbrook). It's easy to dismiss religious funamentalists as a reasonable person. It's significantly harder to dismiss the other two categories of people. Whether a right or usage of that right is "worth it" seems to be a personal value judgement of what an individual wants society to optimize for, whereas the philosophy of freedom of speech is a complicated matter sensetive to political factors and the purported function (and actual function in the real world) of speech.