Stifle free speech?? A small coterie of posters already stifle inhibit posting on anything vaguely political, not by banning it but by making assumptions. Ones like "The right on here are nowhere near as erudite as the left"^ which denies the existence of any middle ground. It assumes that anyone who doesn't advocate exactly the same details as them is automatically bright blue in the face and advocating the death penalty for any starving pauper caught stealing a loaf - and that anyone with any other ideas to theirs is ignorant too.
Then there's the "Unless your tennis is of Rafe Nadal's standard, you have no right to go anywhere near the Centre Court." dismissal. There are many, many people in the crowds at Wimbledon who play a little tennis, or a modest amount, but they know the basic moves, they can tell good play from bad, they discuss the performances of their favourites and predict the outcome of matches, but they do not have the skill, the power, the experience, the chutzpah, to challenge any of the top seeds.
That is not a reason to despise them for daring to join a conversation about tennis. But posters are despised for joining a political conversation unless they have a stock of quotes from obscure commentators, are quick to ridicule the quotes of the "other side" as coming from biased and unsafe sources, and are armoured to cut and thrust and fight without heeding the wounds.
Frankly, it is not worth expressing any opinions unless you are prepared and able to use black belt judo or vehement invective against the replies. The overkill doesn't persuade or convert anyone any better than a milder response. It just sends them away from the discussion with a flea in their ear, to vote as they were going to anyway.
