Problem is -- and this very discussion shows it *very* well -- that even with
such restrictive license put on "works of opinion" (I do not subscribe to the
view that this distinction is relevant, but let's work with that), views *are*
misunderstood.
So, the license does not fix this problem, at all.
The impetus of the license isn't to increase understanding or
decrease misunderstanding amongst readers of a work of opinion, but
to stop the distribution of misrepresenting derivative works. I
can't follow you when you start from a false predicate.