Hitchens was inexhaustibly eloquent and grandiloquent; his skill at using expletives for emphasis in service to his message reflected his mastery of the language.

Gawker (and all of its puerile clickbait spawn) is no Chris Hitchens.

"I'm British and I think that swearing enriches language when used judiciously."

It does. But "My political opponents are [swear word]" is not judicious. (Or profanity if you prefer; most Americans would not call "turd" a swear word but it is obviously merely a more genteel way of calling someone a shit, it is a low-grade profanity.)

It's very common and hardly new. It may even be tactically or strategically sound for some desired goals. But it's not judicious, having the same root as judge, being similar to magisterial. Dignified, mature magistrates do not say "People who disagree with me are poo poo heads." If they are inclined to fling insults, they usually use a much higher grade. See, for instance: http://allowe.com/laughs/book/When%20Insults%20Had%20Class.h...

Cunts would work much better than turds, which just seems juvenile.

I'm Irish and I agree.

Think of some great comedians, especially Scots, like Billy Connolly and Frankie Boyle - who use a good swear word very well.

So.. article title - good or not?

I agree with your point, and still also with OP.