Mike, this is a good subject to raise and one that should be thoroughly aired.
Ethically and morally it is never wrong to use truth to expose wrongness and destructiveness.
The real issue is the intent behind one's use of truth.
Truth can be used to help correct an individual or it can be used to deliberately harm and destroy them
Ethically, and for one's own sanity, one should stop destruction and evil by others when one can . . . that there may well be "collateral" damage can be a consideration . . . but the bottom line is: that collateral damage, as in the case you cite with Pate, is the result of his cause; not the cause of the person acting to prevent him from further damaging others. The perpetrator of the crime is responsible for ALL damage that comes about as a consequence of his direct action and as a result of the action of justice by others required to handle the criminal.
Using truth to handle any nonsensical or criminal situation really should not be seen as nor placed in the realm of being an "attack on the attacker" . . . it is the action of exposing destructive actions and seeking correction.
And this too, should be the response of folks who are attacked by being targeted by unscrupulous organizations or outfits like the cult of Scientology and its attorneys . . . the cult's philosophy of attacking with the evil intent to destroy "opposition" with the use of lies is evil, is wrong and is best remedied by use of truth to expose them for their evil intent and fraud. And it should be labeled and exposed as such: evil and fraud.
In the case you describe with Pate and Dexter . . . truth, mate, truth without any hatred . . . just leave them exposed and they will be abandoned by all who would in any way give or support them or believe in them.
Personally, I and others have not acted in the direction of the individuals you have named . . . most I am in touch with simply stopped dealing with the area (and it wonders why!! )
These types are too deluded to understand that folks do not like being bullshitted to . . . they are so into their own little boxes that they do not perceive what they produce or how folks are truly reacting to them. They eventually cease to exist because they run out of people to suck off while those that hold with them the longest are part of their delusion that contributes to their demise.
And that is why truth is the greatest remedy of all.
But use it against the actions of the Being . . . not the Being itself. One can destroy what they do . . . but if one acts to destroy them as Beings or as people, then one is risking future karma blow-back. One can quite safely "hate" what a person is doing and attack the action without bad karma collection: but to respond to the person with hatred and any attempt to attack the person himself is where one is indeed doing oneself a disservice and damage.
And, as a note here regarding ESMB . . . this is the reason it is a good rule that one should not attack individuals, the person himself, here: perfectly fine to hate his writing and to call it for what it is . . . but target the writing and the thoughts expressed, not the person.
Thanks Roger, I like this thoughtful answer. Kind of follows my feeling of it being highly personal, and only something that can be internally answered ... am I doing this for the right reasons.
I do agree on the sunshine of truth disinfection concept. However, separating out the actions from the person is something I find very difficult with. A couple weeks ago I had real problems with how a hired contractor was dealing with some of my staff. We have a tendency to allow women capable of the jobs to take positions in almost exclusively make dominated industries, I like shaking it up, and the different qualities they bring into the game. This contractor was really out of line and inappropriate, if not abusive. My first inclination was to physically beat him to his knees and rub his nose in it, what I settled on was calling the president of the company to complain, it was a bigger company than ours, and when I couldn't get satisfaction got my attorney involved with an offer, a private meeting with the offending employee and the president of the company in my office with the victimized staff and witness to explain himself, and with policies changed in his company, or else. It took a lot of effort and time, but this guy will never do anything like that again, and hopefully it will force a change in that company. I didn't demand he be fired, I wouldn't accept discounted services or any other payment, I wanted him to feel greater pain and humiliation than he subjected this lady to, and I wanted the president of the company to know what his people were doing and feel it as well. Maybe it is an over reaction, maybe it was viscous, maybe it was a power play, but I believe we have to look after our own.