No, copyleft puts users first, developers second. Software freedom is about the "four freedoms", and they are, as you can see, things the user is free to do.
Being a user and being a developer is in no way mutually exclusive. Developers are, generally, the first users of any software. In any case, why would a non-developer user care about those "freedoms"? It's the devs that are affected.
Secondly, why would a developer ever pick a license that puts HIM second.
A non-developer user would care about those freedoms because that's the only way they can guarantee they control the program and what it does for them. More info here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html A developer would pick a license that puts users first when the developer thinks that the users of the program should have control of the said program, and what it does.
1) The FSF criticizes copyright, but that has nothing to do with the fact that "freedom" to take freedoms away isn't a freedom to begin with;
2) FSF criticizing copyright (as it is) doesn't mean that they oppose to any kind of copyright. It is not true that you need "strong copyright laws", but you need some copyright laws (instead of everything being on public domain). More about that here: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/pirate-party-and-free-software
However, MIT/ISC are way close to public domain that the GPL.
Yes, those licenses are closer to the public domain. They both have problems, tho: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html