When one takes positions perceived as inconsistent with a minority group’s consensus on public policies, opponents may substantively articulate their disagreement or they may argue that the motive for the argument was the advocate’s racial or religious prejudice.

If they take the latter position and issue ad hominem attacks, the ethical obligation is heavy, as charging racial or religious bigotry falsely can besmirch a pundit’s reputation permanently. Hence, the moral responsibility of the publication is at risk, as well as its writer’s.