"If facts are outlawed, only outlaws will have the facts." -- TheLastWordSword
The rhetorical positions of those who wish to limit and control the Social Narrative. The need to limit the Social Narrative in some fashion, so as to retain its factual and informative nature seems fairly benign, but the need to control it seems to me to be more questionable. While there is a great deal of value in acquiring expertise in any subject, the fact remains that such expertise does not make anyone's opinion infallible, and that such privileged opinions ought to be subject to re-examination and re-evaluation by anyone willing to apply the intellectual effort necessary to address their merits and flaws appropriately and openly.
In the final analysis, any use of Rhetoric, removed from the power and examination of Dialectic, finds its only real strengths are the uses of force and fraud. That these "principles" remain all too effective does not say much for the progress we believe that we have made as an intelligent, self-aware and self-interested species of life.
"Instead, Newman, Duff, and Baumeister (1997) proposed a new model of defensive projection. In this view, people try to suppress thoughts of their undesirable traits, and these efforts make those trait categories highly accessible—so that they are then used all the more often when forming impressions of others. The projection is then only a by-product of the real defensive mechanism." The lack of desirable traits may also be projected onto others, either as a positive or negative attribute, e.g., saving, investing, and having money may be seen as positive attributes, balanced by negative projections of stinginess, excessive concern with money, or excessive pride in one's wealth.