It seems to me that in arguing that it is not a matter of free speech but of incivility v solidarity one simply avoids engaging in the substantive arguments for and against.

What if for example if large groups of 'liberal fundamentalists' got together and started protesting that the governments of say, Saudi Arabia or Algeria should resign because their policies towards women were fundamentally uncivil and offensive to the principles of liberalism? It seems that if we accept that governments are answerable to people other then their own citizens in this way then this would not be objectionable. By calling the argument something else, these most obvious issues are just avoided before we even get onto the more important arguments for free speech. For example, in the hypothetical case above, whose feelings have the most value, who will decide on this etc.

Personally, as a liberal fundamentalist, I am against the way in which women in Saudi Arabia are treated, for example.  However, I also believe in democracy and self-government, and am prepared to accept that other governments have a right to govern in a way which I find objectionable or offensive.

Tara