Last I checked, PURE SPEECH expressing revulsion, disgust, hatred and the like was both tolerated by our own First Amendment and more broadly by democratic theory in general. The idea of both is to create thee architecture for two-way communication, in this example at least, between the "haves" and the "have nots," especially as to the impact of haves' beliefs on have nots fortunes. The question of rudeness -- or its flipside, politeness -- in such endeavors is ancillary, that is, not central to the main mechanism prized in the set-up: effective feedback.
In its most violent, exaggerated extreme, the problem we are discussing here -- only analogous to our present circumstances or, say, those under President Clinton, by the mere mantle of power and the generation of unpopular policies, but not as to moral absenteeism and evil incarnate -- are the right (but rarely the opportunity) to run trenchant, biting commentary on the radical regimes of the Left and Right: Stalinist USSR, Maoist China, with a long list of political degradations cascading down from there. Perhaps best conceived as a prophylactic as much as a corrective, our robust theory of speech explicitly tolerates the regularly annoying as a sentry against the truly evil. Live with it.
