This is a very tough row to hoe. I admit that it challenges my default assumptions about free speech. I have always maintained that the only way to counter hateful or ignorant speech is with more speech. What then, when the listeners hear only what they are predisposed to accept? I did not trouble to look up the assertion about black men killing police. I assumed it was false and outrageous. My assumption has nothing to do with facts. How harshly may I judge the listener who accepted this statement?
Where I do think Trevor was brave, strong, and well reasoned; he (and his writers I assume) used an essentially emotional argument. Emotional arguments and allegory appear to carry more weight in the sphere of political debate. Is this not what won an election for Trump?