Could it be that you, as a true old hand at talk shows and not exactly known for throwing cotton balls at people you're talking to, are unable to distinguish between moral outrage over a position netherlands rcs data that differs from yours and the basic understanding of the public exchange of views that has been valid since the Enlightenment? and you know Voltaire, who said: "I hate your ideas, but I would kill for your right to express them."
Anyone who does not comply, anyone who cannot provide a convincing reason for turning off someone else's microphone, is making a mistake. If one were to judge Roger Schawinski on the basis that his opinions, his talk shows, his written statements are "unacceptable" for some or many, one could, with the same "basic journalistic understanding", demand that his talk show be cancelled and his station shut down. At least I did it ironically in the Hildebrand case, apart from the fact that I did not have the opportunity to do so.