I am going to be the first, and perhaps the only person to flag this post. IN the grand scheme of things, I'm sure my flag doesn't mean very much.
While I actually agree with many of the criticisms contained herein, I consider the threat of a civil lawsuit for Val's expression of an opinion to be both abhorrent and irresponsible. Especially given that OP makes a claim to have been an attorney at one point, I also consider it borderline unlawful practice "this is not legal advice" disclaimer not withstanding.
I happen to like Bernie sanders, NGC and kush. I think they're important if for no reason other than to have high SP whales who are willing to look at the system and the decisions made at the top with a critical eye.
But the same critical thinking and discourse that represents a valuable contribution to the community when it comes from NGC also represents a valuable contribution to the community when it comes from Val, or anyone else.
To say that an opinion should not be expressed, or to attempt to exert a chilling effect on discussion by the public threat of civil liability for the expression of certain opinions is something that every member here should oppose. The assertion made in comments that opinions which are contrary to popular opinion (or worse, that popular opinion can be construed as having the effect of transforming subjective judgement into fact) is a recipe for the institutionalization of censorship.