The issue is when you say “almost” unrestricted free speech. Someone’s going to have to make the call what the line is. In the US, that’s already been decided thankfully (imminent harm, not “harrasment”). France, I think, will end up walking this back depending on the political repercussions.

It’s enjoyable to get other perspectives, but at the end of they day, I support candidates and judicial nominees who maintain rights as freedoms as unrestricted as possible (speech, firearms ownership, etc). Because you never know who is going to be in power next, and how they will weaponize the exceptions to fundamental rights.

There is a cost to a free and democratic society.