I am not taking your post to task, because arguing over whether she was "dismantled" (my word) or "Stumbled" is an unproductive discussion (although that would qualify it for this thread
), but I do want to address one strawman that you mention.
Specifically, I want to address your assertion that "they do have a right to speak their mind". Firstly, NO serious commenter here or elsewhere has ever argued that they must be silent. Yet, every time this gets discussed, this line gets thrown out there as if anyone were arguing they do not have a right to an opinion. It is the very essence of a strawman.
Secondly, and most importantly, much as free speech is not an absolute unfettered right for individuals, it is not an unfettered right for political organizations or anyone commeting on a proposed business transaction. If you sit back and look at the tort of intentional intereference with economic or prospective economic relations, from a lay point of view it is pretty much akin to slander of individuals, only applied to an economic setting. No one, whether a person, a political entity or a self-professed "watchdog"
, can simply make up whatever they want without being subject to a requirement to demonstrate the truth or fair comment of their statement. Again - everyone is entitled to HAVE an opinion, but when you start expressing that opinion, you are subject to the law of the land as well.