When Good Sites Censor

One of my favorite sites is Daily Paul. It's been an open forum and a very large one for those who appreciate freedom of speech. Always lots to agree and disagree with, just as open communication should  be.

But lately a couple of subjects have been seen to be divisive to the dialog. The owner of DP, Michael Nystrom, thinks it is in the best interests of his site to censor some of the most interesting and thought provoking posts concerning 9/11 and Israel.

To me these two issues, the false flag 9/11 and Israel's actions and influences, lie at the root of many of our current problems. Obviously many others at DP think so too judging by the threads there.  

Yeah, trolls/provocateurs are a problem at DP but that's everywhere and I've found if you just ignore them they'll go away. And if people don't like certain topics, well ... just ignore those too. It really should be a case of  'we're all on the same side here and no need to agonize over minor differences.'

What made DP relevant was it's diversity of topics and not being afraid to go down some less traveled paths as I thought the Paul message did.

Two of those paths are now seen to be divisive and not worthy of 'safe' consideration.

Sort of .... 'Gotta get our side's politicians elected and be more mainstream. Otherwise the big media may call us kooks and alienate potential voters. The political system can still work if we all agree.'

I'm not all that sure that tactic will work. All the truth as we know it at this moment should be told and debated.

Here's the latest DP thread on the topic of censoring.

Warning! Censoring topics will cause harm to the site and Movement.

Dear Michael,

There are uncountable number of throlls all over the internet whose job is to disrupt blogs and other websites, and get websites to censor themselves for negative mentions of Israel.

It is not easy to maintain the integrity of a site and still allow free discourse; I know that the throlls and shills will play both sides of the game to cause disruption till they cause the break of integrity and achieve censorship.

The Daily Paul already has good posting rules in place and only needs to enforce to ensure proper discussion of any topic. It does not need to censor negative discussion of just one county. Just imagine what doing that means!

The negative aspects of targeting just one country for censorship, are too many to mention. But from my experience there will be great disruptions to the site if you decide to unjustly target just one country.

The comments are varied  and telling. Mr. Nystrom responds:

Censoring is necessary in order to remain focused.

The mission of this site is to promote Ron Paul and his ideas.

Among these ideas are individual liberty.

911, and related topics tend to be divisive and take the community off message. 

Nystrom has all the right in the world to control his site as he wants. I just happen to think it's not in either his or the truth movement's best interests to limit the discourse. The Daily Paul should not be a garden variety alternative site to say, the Huffington Post. They censor the same topics there don't they.

~~~

Here's an article that was linked at the DP Sunday that got a lot of people going, both those sincere and the trolls. I guess it got a little too heavy and was censored. It may have been the so called 'straw that broke the camel's back.'

Israel Did 9/11, All the Proof You Need