I don't see any hypocrisy. I agree with the other complainants that you've introduced a red herring here, Brett. Just because the GPL isn't as free as the BSD or Apache style licenses, or the Artistic license, doesn't mean that it's wrong. In fact, I was heartened to see Bruce saying that sincere choice means that any license--including proprietary licenses--can be OK.
The only coercion I'm concerned about is external to licensing terms. My objection to Microsoft's licenses has always been the fact that, as a monopoly, certain terms that might be acceptable in a small company's license (which the customer can walk away from) become coercive when the licensor has such market power that they can dictate terms. Add that to Microsoft's past abuses of power, and you have a problem.
The GPL might be considered a coercive license if the FSF had such market power that people were forced to accept it. But if it's freely accepted as a condition of use of the licensed software, it's not a problem. No one has a right to use the software except on the terms under which it is provided.