-28 votes

Should Neo-Nazis be allowed to post on this forum?

I know nobody here is crazy about censorship, but where do you draw the line? Should we let known Neo-Nazis and Stormfront recruiters post here?

Comment viewing options

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

I second that motion to ban Nazi Republicans!

Most Republican are Nazi like so lets ban them all!


I would hope the media could not draw any lines. We seem to be heading in that predictable direction though.

Here, it's the owners decision.

I would hope that he would allow this to be a venue for all thought to stand or fall on their own merit.

That includes neo-nazi's, communists, fascist, black panthers, militant animal liberators, jewish extremists, racialists, die hard liberals, and so on.

By allowing one to speak freely, you're not endorsing their ideas.. you're defending their right to hold contrary opinions. Which you should value for the day your opinions are viewed to be too 'extreme'.

Listen to all; Follow none.

Ain't skeered...

...a' no words on dem internets

lessen it bes mys own read by dem nsa psychos.

Free speech

I want the opportunity to loudly disagree with everyone... regardless of what they believe.

At their inceptions, the #Liberty, #OccupyWallStreet and #TeaParty movements all had the same basic goal... What happened?

Sure, why not?

Lots of racists post in here. Tea Party Trolls and Republicans. This used to be more of a Libertarian site, but now it seems like lots of people have switched their heads around to be more Tea Party GOP. So why not let the Neo-Nazis post?

ecorob's picture


We want them exposed so we can identify them and vote down their warmongering ways...just like the zionists.

The Muslims? YES. So we can come to truly understand their religion and their intention so we can make informed decisions on whether, or not, we will accept them.

The Christians? YES. So we can come to truly understand their religion and their intention so we can make informed decisions on whether, or not, we will accept them.

The fill in the blank? YES. So...you know the rest.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

Republicae's picture

In my opinion, anyone should

In my opinion, anyone should be allowed to post and have their opinions scrutinized and, if necessary, rebutted to the point that their opinion is either vindicated or exposed as false.


"We are not a nation, but a union, a confederacy of equal and sovereign States" John C. Calhoun

Tell you this, they are like snow in winter and leaves falling

in autumn. Cyclical. They come in waves. We never bother to determine their schedule or find out who might be pushing what buttons but it's curious to watch how they go about it.

Somehow ECONOMICALLY they happen to agree with us and we with them. And many of them seem to be sincere admirers of Dr. Paul in terms of foreign policy. They are tuned to the corporatist nature of our government and they are ACUTELY AWARE of various globalist powers seeking to control us.

It's almost freaky how much we agree on. Until they yank out the race card and we go ballistic. But basically I think their methods probably pay off and they skim a % of readers here that feel the way they do with regards to race (religion, sexuality, lifestyle, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.). In other words it probably works for them.

Now the question is are they doing us a favor?

There is nothing strange about having a bar of soap in your right pocket, it's just what's happening.

I would say no...

Do you think it's coordinated? There are lot of people posting that have respect for property rights. Hopefully this type of crap will stop now that you have to contribute wealth to be a member.


Well let us take a look...


Should ________ be allowed to post on this forum?

I know nobody is crazy about censorship, but where do you draw the line? Should we let known _______ and ________ recruiters post here?

Should Muslims be allowed to post on this forum?

I know nobody is crazy about censorship, but where do you draw the line? Should we let known Taliban recruiters post here?

Should Christians be allowed to post on this forum?

I know nobody is crazy about censorship, but where do you draw the line? Should we let known bible thumpers and congregation recruiters post here?

Should Neo Cons be allowed to post on this forum?

I know nobody is crazy about censorship, but where do you draw the line? Should we let known warmongers and red team recruiters post here?

I don't think singling out a particular group and alienating them as long as they aren't being "destructive", is a good thing. If you don't like their posts, you can down vote them. I am sure I will get a few because I mentioned Christian in my post as an example.

Regardless, it doesn't matter what should and should not, ultimately Michael decides who stays and who goes, and recently he has been much more active in that decision.

But to conclude, no, I personally don't think we should keep anyone away, as long as they are not being destructive.

The only censorship that

The only censorship that matters is the kind that comes from government. This is not that.

I guess it depends on your perspective

Whether the purpose of the forum is a totally open discussion, or a specific forum to promote the cause of liberty. There is a tangible difference here between the groups you mentioned and my example. There can be a diverse group of people who are all committed ti roughly the same principles, even if they have substantial disagreements. Neo-Nazis are specifically harmful to the libertarian cause, because the association of libertarianism with neo-nazism has been used as a propaganda tool to delegitamize libertarian ideas. I'm sure you remember back in 2007 how devasting the newsletter story was to the Ron Paul campaign. It came out just before the primary in new hampshire, and it killed our momentum. Ron Paul's dismal showing in the NH primary pretty much killed our chances of a serious run, and we lost a ton of supporters over that. It really killed the momentum that had been building with the whole ron paul revolution phenomenon. The guilt by association has since been repeatedly trotted out to discredit libertarianism, and unfortunately, it's been partially successful. I'm sure many people who might have been willing to listen to the libertarian perspective were totally turned off by the nazi claims, and reinforced their pre-exiting concerns about libertarianism.

Also, as for your example of Taliban recuriters: Yes, they should be banned. I think actively recruiting for terrorist organizations would be a thing that would pretty much necessitate a ban.

Fortune Favors the Bold

If we disagree with something posted in this forum....

there is this really cool "down arrow" feature on the left side.

I've tried it. It works. You can use it too.

What's really cool

is the upvote feature also on the left side.

I figure there are three kinds of DP members. Those who come to upvote. Those who come to downvote; and those who could careless about the votes.

I Upvoted You Grande...

(((((((((((((((((((((The Granger)))))))))))))))))))))))

ecorob's picture

Not true. Oversimplification.

If you consistently swim against the tide of the voices of the DP people you get VOTED DOWN, granger.

If you are, generally, in agreement and add to the discourse you get voted up.

If you, damn near ALL of the time, are in disagreement with the Liberty-minded folks here, (lets say, for argument's sake, you support romnie or mccain or bachmann or sanitorum because they are gop) you just might get the knee jerk down vote.

To say there are three kinds of DP members shows a complete misunderstanding of the definition of Liberty (but we are not surprised).

And, of course, you have EVERY right to your beliefs. Just don't try to marginalize EVERYONE here because they disagree with you.

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

LOL ahhh ecorob

A collectivist worries about the collective, the tide of voices.

The individual thinks for himself despite the tide of voices. The tide of voices have every right, and every reason of their own, individualsly beit, kneejerk, spite, genuine not liking the content or agreeing..

Can you imagine what Ron Paul would have done had he tuned into the congress to fit it? Imagine Ron Paul, all those decades NOT eating lunch by himself.. NOT being crazy uncle Ron.. who they ignored, censored, shunned, insulted, called names.. what if he felt as you did about "the tide"?

Generally i dont care much about voting.

Guess that would put me in her third category.


Did you read my post? Be

Did you read my post? Be honest.

I was voicing an opinion in HARMONY with yours.

Kind of speaking to those who were opposing you.

Its a literary technique.

Sorry if it threw you.

Quite alright, I need to work

Quite alright, I need to work on my internet perception anyways.

Come on....

yes, it is Michael's ultimate choice to allow or not allow, however if we are going to constantly promote and speak for liberty then speak for it. If someone posts a thread that is as you say "Neo-Nazi", then argue the point(s) and stand up for liberty. Why we would advocate for restrictive material as it pertains to the OP message? We don't need mommy and daddy to protect us here.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

Who is "JohnGalt300"?

And why is he advocating censorship in the name of Libertarianism?

just a guy who can google

just a guy who can google

Fortune Favors the Bold

You are a moron

This site is personal property.


How does this site being personal property make me a


How does censorship make this site libertarian leaning?

"Liberty for those I agree with!" huh Seamusin?

You are the moron here.

Property rights(owning yourself and the affects of your actions)

Foundational to libertarianism. Michael makes the rules with folks that he agrees to share his property with. When they break the rules and the contract THEY ARE THE AGGRESSORS!!

The only real question is what are the rules that Michael wants to make. I am not an aggressor to have an opinion on that.

It is quite obvious that you did not come to libertarianism from an economic perspective but from a libertine perspective. Either that or you are a stormfront sleeper.

Either way, may I recommend: For A New Liberty, by Murray Rothbard. It should clear some stuff up for you.


I'm well educated in libertarian economics. Thank you very much.

If you don't like the way the Michael administers HIS site you have the Liberty to start your own dailylibertyforjustthepeopleIlike.com site. (I bet that domain name is still available.)

And most of us will never contradict you because we won't be there.

From "House rules and posting guidelines"

4.Do not post racist, sexist, pornographic or otherwise obscene materials


7. No Assholes


"Failure to follow these rules can result in banishment from the community."


This website is my private property. Participating here is a privilege, not a right. Understanding the difference between these concepts is fundamental to understanding the message of freedom and liberty.


You are welcome.



I love the way he adminesters his site!!!

You see I was having this argument with this racist idiot yesterday and I was getting really upset.


I was pretty wild, I have a hard time trying to have a rational conversation with these folks, especially when they refuse to see reason a preach a vile belief system.

Anyway, not a problem anymore. He got booted. I felt really good about that.