You fine Gentlemen of DFWStangs will have to forgive me. I spent 30 years as a wildlife scientist and opinions were never given unless they can be backed up with data or facts.
There are two kinds of opinions: Normative and Positive.
Normative are opinions on what "ought to be" and are not based on facts and are usually not provable. Lots of feeling here but they are meaningless at the least and harmful at the worst.
Positive opinions are based on fact or scientific observation.
Generally thought to be provable. They shouldn't be good or bad, just facts. Legal opinions kind of fall in here but they are probably in between.
I know where you are coming from (Normative opinion) Paladin, but where in the constitution does it say you have a right to an opinion? 1st amendment? (abridging the freedom of speech) Maybe. It depends on what the effects are. That goes back to the yelling fire in a theater legal opinion.
As a polite society we say that people should have an opportunity to express an opinion but I think we have expectations that they are basing their opinions on something more than "feeling". Herein lies the problem and I have a real problem when an "authority" figure uses unsupportable opinions. On DFWstangs it really doesn’t matter one way or another. I know this is all rhetorical but as a Libertarian I feel there should be responsibility in action and words as much as freedom from large government and political correctness.