Here’s a puzzle. Why do the instinct-driven, who rely primarily on superficial optics (what things look like, appearances) as their sole source of information, ignore the written word?
Is there a significant difference between pictures and symbols?
Is there a failure to translate?

Or, to put it another way, why do the instinct-driven rely on the spoken, rather than the written word? Does their experience tell them that the spoken word has no permanent import?
Is that what “free speech” means to them — that they can say anything and nobody can hold them to it?
When electronic written communications first became ubiquitous, it was generally assumed that they didn’t have to be preserved/archived as the law demands of “hard copy.” That’s what accounted for the Pentagon’s decision to make video recordings of detainee interrogations in Iraq. Then their assumption was proved wrong by the courts and the President had to embargo the incriminating evidence under the umbrella of national security concerns. More recently, it was determined that the President’s tweets have to be preserved/archived.