So, here's why you're all dumb. Morals are individualized. Each individual person has their own code of morals, and their integrity is how well they adhere to it. You cannot apply your code of morals to a different individual's action and objectively state that they are a good or bad person for it. You can pass personal judgement on that person for it, but here's the thing: that's relative.
If you think Nickpb is a richard for being harsh towards Fen/Custardo, great. Fantastic for you. Judge his character for it, make a mental note that he's a richard.
Here's the thing: just because you think he's being a richard, doesn't mean that he's being a richard. There is no moral high ground for you to take to attempt to censor him. There's a saying: "Opinions are like noses, everybody's got one." You may be self-important and think that your opinion is the end-all and be-all judgement, but it's not.
This is why principles like free speech exist.
To summarize and contextualize: "Just because you can [lash out] doesn't mean you should" is a stupid statement to make. The only reason you think he shouldn't lash out is because you've applied your morals to his actions, and published your opinion as an objective critique of his actions. Not only is this statement self-important, but it's completely unsubstantiated. Why shouldn't he lash out? Because you think it's wrong? Fantastic.
