Israel/Palestine

It is the dilemma that a progressive community is creating. DU is to some degree a refuge from the right wing. If I want to read the opposition's point of view I can (and too frequently do) read the Daily Telegraph, or the Murdoch press, or some right-wing blog.

And Admin and juries do expect that people should endorse a broadly progressive consensus on DU.

You haven't answered my original question: Do you think that Mitt Romney's views should be presented on DU as part of acceptable progressive discourse?

Do you think that Dan Pipes or Pam Geller or Melanie Phillips should be legitimately cited as an acceptable point of view on DU?

That is the logical conclusion to banning all forms of censorship on DU.

I do not think that people should be forbidden to vote Republican, or that Republican propaganda should be banned from the media and the internet; nor is it likely to be. I believe in democracy and a free press. BUT I do not think that DU is the appropriate place for right-wing advocacy.

Perhaps you do think that the supporters of Mitt Romney or Dan Pipes should be able to promote their views on DU without censorship. After all, some people (especially anti-progressive Republicans!) do think that Romney is comparatively progressive - so, as you say, where do you draw the line? And I had endless debates back in 2007 with a DU-er who thought that Dan Pipes was a totally acceptable person to quote on DU.

If you do think this, then at any rate you're consistent! But this would change DU from being a progressive or pro-Democratic board to being a general political debate board. That would make it very different from what it is at the moment. You make it sound as though 'Shira and I' are trying to change DU from its original purpose (incidentally, Shira and I hardly march in lockstep, and I have had quite a few arguments with her, very similar to the one that I'm now having with you, about whether right-wing sources are acceptable if they support one's 'side' in the I/P debate). In fact, it seems to me that if you wish to change DU to a general political debate board where any source is acceptable, then you are the one who wishes to change it from its original purpose. If a majority wish to change it, then fair enough; but it would be quite a profound change.