For example, I recently received this article from some colleagues. These are incredibly intelligent, well-educated people whom I respect and admire. What followed turned into a diatribe against the government and its use of force and coercion to stop religious practices.
Of course, the article does not say anything of the kind. It merely states the Pentagon met with someone and followed up with a typically anodyne statement regarding officers proselytizing their subordinates.
But propaganda is useful, is it not? So what should follow such a ridiculous claim as "people will be court marshaled for speaking about religion" is a critical analysis guided by one of my favorite maxims: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" AND a careful understanding of qui bono - who benefits from this claim and its resulting backlash by the masses.
One should not turn off the critical thinking facilities because one agrees with a premise or general tenor of an argument.