Of course not. I do believe it is not about shutting up or ban somebody’s valid (or even wrong) opinion… It is about gaining credibility and improving overall situation. Everybody has legitimate right express own opinion but counterpart has legitimate right to evaluate credibility of thoughts and actions. Drunken drug counselor has still right talk about danger of addiction. No doubt about that. I would never try to shut him up. I would point out his behavior. I just would be careful with his advises and I try to find somebody else if possible. I think it is natural way how we think and act.
Here are few examples:
Can NY Times organize Privacy project even when they have mess in their own house? Sure! But I guess you would not call them hypocrites if they clean up their house first and then organize such a project. Still good things to do but it would be better if they decrease ad and surveillance requests on their home page first. Credibility (and impact as a consequence) of their project and actions would increase if they decrease numbers of tracker in their house at the same time. And credibility of their project will logically decrease if they increase numbers of trackers in their home page at the same time with the privacy project. Otherwise people will constantly point out about mess in their own house and hardly trust them.
And maybe you are right. Maybe it is not so much logical, maybe it is more emotional part of our behavior, which is still important part of our beings. If you think about love - not so much logical thing, but worth to do it. Intelligent machines are strictly logical and maybe this is reason why we tend to not trust them.
And really it is hard thing to do that (especially if somebody throwing trash to your yard all the time) but still worth to do that. Because if you add 0.001 positive thing to this world it is better than 0 or -1.