Forum Post: I heard Occupy Wall Street admins are now censoring the blog. Is this the 99%?
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 2:25 a.m. EST by IminTexas
(33)
from La Marque, TX
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Shame! Shame! Shame! You are the REAL fascists!
this movement is trying to destroy our country socialism starts with a smiley face and ends with millions at the end of a gun. Wake up before its to late or move to Venezuela or other communist country
They are socialists that will let you speak as long as you say what they believe in. They shut down free speech.
Admins are going to ban us?
I will ban anyone supporting this article.
Yes, and they should since this should be a place for people that sincerely want to help and learn from each other to make our nation a better future for everyone.
[Removed]
ok well they did not censor your post and yet you have failed to state your case. So what? What is the problem? I am sincerely listening.
boo hoo. the trolls think they deserve to troll us. cry me a river of crocodile tears. don't let the door hit ya where the lort split ya as you make like a tree and leave.
I think the admins are scared and want to be leader.
guys, i don't want to over react but this censorship is not the direction we want to go. Isn't that what Bloomberg is doing by evicting occupiers from the park? you cannot justify this censorship by comparing spam for Viagra etc, to posting political opinions. Like it or not, there will be a presidential election next year and the candidate that wins will have an affect on this movement. Please do a better job of defending this obstruction of free speech or you will simply fail to be relevant, even if you have pocketed the donations thus far.
According to the rules, you can't even talk about Obama's policies for 2012 nor any other candidate. How can you affect change w/out being about to talk about the policy-makers.
Exactly. It would seem those who want to censor these forums to cleanse it of any "political" talk clearly do not want to work within the system. If the focus was on the crooks in Congress and Washington, maybe we could get rid of the thousands of pages of tax laws that allow for special interests to cheat the system and pay no taxes. That is what is wrong.
I'm starting to get this picture of OWS as anarchists, with no idea of what they really want, other than to turn the system upside down. They say that the violence is being committed by "fringe" elements. I'm beginning to wonder if that is not the core of this movement.
It's extremely irresponsible for a major website claiming to represent a large movement to implement selective censorship. I'll have no part of it and I don't consider occupywallst.org a legitimate representation at this point.
What have they censored? Show us proof? This post still exists.
They are not censoring, they are setting rules. The very thing that Wall Street didn't want.
Exactly right, JadedCitizen. Removing posts that are offensive such as anti-Semitism, personal attacks and heavy swearing are normal for all internet forums, and should be.
Bottom line. I think the moderators are trying to send the message that this is not a place to come and pitch getting leaders elected, it is a place to come and learn from one another and make better choices in the future than we have in the past.
Another great post, JadedCitizen. What you have said is the bottom line - "learn from each other and make better choices in the future". This is a great Movement!
This forum is not removing the posts.
It is mangling the name in a mockery of the person, and most likely because the author of the website believes one or motre of these il;-conceived, biased points:
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_is_an_enemy_of_the_People_and_Truth
They are setting rules about which political candidate's name can be typed and which can't. That's the definition of censorship, and the manner in which they are doing it is offense, childish, and rude -- having no place in adult debate about the future of a nation.
I looked up the definition. Technically, it is censorship. But we have censorship everywhere in life - politically correct terms, offensive language. If you read the rules this censorship is only applying to select groups who would post profane things, stalk other people, spam Ron Lawl adverts, etc. Should they drop all the rules, or just the one you object to. If you're going to object censorship, why wouldn't you object to it all in the first place, and not just the letters that combine to make Ron Lawl.
Why can I not spell Ron Lawl
Perhaps you need to learn how to spell? Ron Paul, not Ron Lawl.