Most of the rhetoric seems to have a tit-for-tat feel to it. Forget about tit for tat. Let's talk about principles. Innocent until proven guilty. Rule of law.

Most of the rhetoric seems to have a tit-for-tat feel to it. Forget about tit for tat. Let's talk about principles. Innocent until proven guilty. Rule of law. The right of free speech. As per usual, the side holding power wishes to dispense with those principles, so they can proceed to get their way, "for the greater good." The other side, knocked onto its back foot, is the one talking about principles. In the 60's, it was the other way around, at least at first. (Then, as now, there are opportunists on the far extremes, hoping to gain power by fanning the flames of outrage.) Now, power is not only embodied in television and print media, it's also mediated by the viral potential of social media. There is one side which seeks to reserve the power of virality to itself, all the while holding onto the declining power of traditional media. It's precisely for situations like this, that the principles were created. It's precisely this kind of imbalance that the principles are supposed to help bring back towards the center. the health of the system are more important than political ideology Hear hear. (Center-left person here.)