-18 votes

I'm owed an explanation.

In the over four-years time I have been at this site and worked very hard for the cause . I have never had an article censored until today.

The mods it seems just found my article too harsh to publish. I always said that Michael's site was the best on the web because it was the least regulated site on the web.

And even though this website is personal property and the owner can publish or decide not to publish whatever article he wants to.

I never thought that Michael would be in violation of the spirit of the First Amendment on this website.

Now I know he does not have to publish my article but I would appreciate it if one of the mods would please explain to me why they found it necessary to censor this article.

Thank you very much.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Rule #1

No profane, disrespectful or divisive language.

My apologies to my friend at the DP.

I just thought that if if I got to fully published in its entirety,at OWS I just assumed that I would get it entirely published at the Daily Paul.apparently not I really like you all and don't want to be 403d whatever that means. If you want to read my entire article you can read it at Occupy Wall Street.

I admitt I am not the best speller...

but "And even though this website is personal property and the owner can publish or decide not to publish whatever article he wants to." is grammatically incorrect.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

From what I could see,

using the F-word in the thread title was not a wise choice, and probably resulted in the deletion of the thread.

If you are planning to run for Congress, like you said you are, you might want to tone down your articles, just in case your opposition might want to print them in his campaign ads.
From the look of the headline you wrote, the mods probably did you a favor by not letting it be seen.

And since you roped all of us

And since you roped all of us into this, why not tell us what the topic was at least?

Show your support for Ron Paul and inspire others at new grassroots site:
( Consider uploading a picture or video of your sign or event, etc .)

You must have broken the rules or something.

I'm not in favor of blocking anyone from this site...no matter how much I disagree with them, but Michael put up a set of rules telling us what will be done if we don't abide by them. It's his blog and he can do what he wants with it.

While I understand your

While I understand your concern, could you have sent the mods an email instead?

You been 403'd

Be thankful you didn't get blocked from logging in.

You are "owed" nothing.

Your participation on this site was through your own VOLUNTARY association.

If you have a problem, use the "Mod Box." To start a thread so you can whine is self-indulgent.

Could it have been...

Because your article was titled: "F you AK."?

"Always vote your principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -John Quincy Adams.

What was it about?

And just what was this censored article about? I have a hard time believing it was censored for no valid reason. Please, shed some more information/light on the situation. :o) I feel Daily Paul is second to none when it comes to information on Ron Paul. Even the great lewrockwell.com is often-times a day or two late with posting videos and such that are posted on here immediately.

"...because it was the least regulated site on the web."

least regulated? i thought you were in favor or regulations ie. promote government to intervene the job market to hand out jobs? hypocritical much?

this is why ppl say the ows crowd just don't get it