So let’s see if I've got this right. To prove oneself morally pure, the unacceptable must be condemned (or something as closely synonymous as possible), and the vocabulary used must be of sufficient strength; all lest one be suspected of complicity. All part of the theatre of contemporary discourse, I suppose. Shock jocks in the red corner, pollies in the blue, blow for blow, expletive for expletive, character attack for character attack, strike where you can, guilt by association … and may the best tweeter win.

But when the masses follow suit, the unintended consequences follow closely. If the language is too strong, the tweets too many, the walls too public, and the gallery too full, then jurors are too scarce, and justice too fragile.

Methinks the shock jocks are winning.