All other speech should be allowed to stand. (He gives credit to a democratic citizenry to cut through the bull.) (1) The minority view might actually be right, despite what the majority says; (2) even if wrong, the minority view offers majority opportunity to reflect upon and clarify their views; (3) without minority view -- no matter how outrageous -- majority will tend to fall asleep; (4) refutation of minority view offers refuters good exercise (as well as a chance to toughen their skins). I might also add: some (aesthetic) discourse is meant to be like a pebble in one's shoe; we should value it no less than sculpture or painting. (Viva Cholo!)
One of the most famous writers of all time: Anonymous.
The only ones complaining about "trolls" are those who lack the argumentative skill to effectively counter other points of view. I don't see lefties seeking to censor anyone. (My own 'pet peeve' is the guy with cognitive difficulty who uses multiple names on the same thread in order to create impression of majority view. Since he is so transparently in trouble, it is easy enough to spot him. And, oh, by the way, he is registered under multiple names.)
Gina's problem is that there are two or three right-wing addicts whose contributions lower the quality of the topic and ensuing discourse on virtually every imaginable thread. Lacking an ability to effectively counter others' viewpoints, they resort to the tired lament about those others not using a registered name. Please. I've never seen this lament when a poster (or blogger) is winning an argument; nor have I seen it when the "troll" is in agreement with the whiner.
Gina's problem is that she mistakenly believes the whiners who lack argumentative skill represent a majority of readers. Surely they do not. But this new (as well as the old) censorship policy is only catering to the right-wing, weak-minded, complainers who, without sufficient argumentative skill, fall back on their tired lament.
Let free speech bloom!