So, it turns out that Wal-mart narrowly escaped a ruling that would've turned the case of 6 disgruntled former employees into a class-action lawsuit worth billions of dollars.

Seems there were 6 women, who met and decided that Wal-mart had a hefty case of female employee discrimination against them. They went to the court's, and California's 9th circuit, arguably one of the most leftist courts in the nation, sent it off to the Supreme Court with a 6-5 decision.

Say what you will about the decision, but there's something greater at play here, a growing dynamic borne of the expansion of social networking. Whereas, years ago, one disgruntled employee with a weak case against their employer might be hard-pressed to find somebody in her city, even her state, who feels similarly, now, due to the wonders of Facebook, Twitter, et al, she can post her argument to millions of people, perhaps finding 4, 5 more that actually feel the same way she does.

Maybe it's not always an arguably "noble" case such as this one, but the implications are far-reaching. Racists can find other racists. Conspiracy theorists can find more conspiracy theories. Amid agreement and discussion, these extremists become more emboldened and dedicated to their case, even if it is downright nutty.

Is this a problem? How can we limit this problem without impacting civil liberties?