Draginol has touched on this a little, but I'm still amazed by people.
The internet has been the greatest tool for free speach that has ever been invented. It has been a great equalizer the likes of which we haven't seen since the dawn of a free market economy. Rathergate is proof of this fantastic power that each and every one of us that can afford a computer and an internet connection can exercise.
But in that power, and especially in the Rathergate article is the key to the problem The reason why the internet, and individual users were so powerful was because logic, reason and PROOF was used. The contradictions were pointed out, the proof was presented that showed the contradictions. It was only with this inescapable evidence that Rather had to back down on a horrible story and the internet struck a blow for freedom.
One of the things that you'll notice if you go to any site that posts news items or blogs or whatever that also accepts comments is that most of the people that post are trolls. That is, they make statements without proof and pass them off as true, or at least as true as anyone else can be in the case of subjectivists. /. is a perfect example of this problem. It's awe inspiring that people actually have the willingness to humilitate themselves like this. Or worse yet, they don't see that by speaking without evidence of your assertion, however thin it might be, is the hight if ignorance. It's like flaunting the fact that you're stupid and a biggot and being proud of it. Sort of the Al Bundy syndrome if you will.
In every one of my posts I try to present a logical argument for which I have physical evidence of my statements. If whatever it is I'm talking about doesn't allow physical evidence (much like most philosophical arguments) I use a simplified version of a logical proof to back up my statements.
And yes, I might even be wrong in my assertions. There is no harm in being wrong so long as you had proof to back you up, even if that proof was incorrect or you interpreted it incorrectly so long as you admit when you're wrong. What there is harm in, is making statements without proof. What's worse is people that will agree with them, simply because they happen to say something that is inline with their own untested ideas. What is worse, is those that understand this saying nothing and allowing those false beliefs to be perpetuated.
This is how we got Hitler, this is how we got pretty much every tyrant in history. One man is allowed to speak, without evidence. Everyone says "it's not my problem. Everyone is smart enough to know that that person doesn't have a clue and has no proof and they'll ignore it." The end result is that they're allowed to speak and more ignorant people join in because they like to hear their own thoughts echoed back at them. And sooner or later, 2 or 3 million jews are dead as a result. (or 2 or 3 thousand americans in the case of 9/11)
I have been personnally attacked plenty of times since I started posting here. Every single time the attacks are of the form "You're wrong, thus you are an idiot". No proof, no nothing, only their belief that what they believe is right, and I'm wrong, and that's enough for them. Show me I'm wrong, demonstrate it. Show the flaw in my logic. Show your superior intellect. But also remember that it is the obligation of all scientists to seek out evidence that you are wrong and must follow the same rules as the person you're trying to disprove.
But of course subjectivists don't believe that they have to do that. Because in their mind, I'm not right, and they're equally not right, so if we're both wrong, then it's ok to assert something without proof because it goes without saying that I'm wrong, because everyone is always wrong, we can't possibly be right. And so it goes, on and on. This was the flaw in Crossfire which was so keenly pointed out by John Stewart that I mentioned before. Everyone is wrong, thus make this about some social group (democrate versus republican) instead of what it is really about: A quest to find the truth and continue to refine our understanding of that truth relentlessly.
Speak your mind, but do a service to the concept of freedom of speech. If you choose to speak, back it up with proof. Demonstrate your intellect by making an argument, and presenting your evidence that you are correct. It takes work. But then freedom in general takes a lot of work. Having the courage to defend yourself from those that speak in ignorance takes even more work. But then the defence of freedom takes the most work of all.
But it is our duty to the very freedom we cherish to defend it always. The first step is to demand proof and accept no statement without it.