you can't vote anyway? Both have given a majority of their lifetime to public service.

Do that forbid me to be here and to show ip interest in American national politics, as well as into some of its leaders? ??

That was bullshit.

Then I think about real life juries and some of their blunders, like letting Zimmerman go free.

He's going to end up in prison sooner or later. It's just a pity that he's probably going to murder someone else to get there.

An hour later it might get picked up.

Certain things get snapped up sooner by them, maybe their numbers are growing, whatever.

This is why I say if it's factual, then the source is of secondary importance.

The "community standards" excuse used in some replies in this thread sounds like jury nullification and intellectual laziness.

We can do better.

And promoting propaganda that we are fundamentally against as a community.

HEY, but maybe next time you'll be on the jury and you can leave links that lead to liberal-hatin', racist. homophobic, misogynistic bullshit and you can feel all warm and fuzzy about it.

No reason to get too excited about this.

I don't post or link a lot.

I, too, would like to know what I am not to refer too.

Is there such a list? How was it compiled (so I don't link by accident)?

......

I have been worst juried before. Partuculary after I posted a factual (and Jury decision showed how taboo it was) yet humoristic toned OP , in the middle of Gaza criminal war....that in fact the real United State capital was not DC....but Tel Aviv. Just wanted to expose the Zionist lobbying hyper influence over here....and ended up locked.

that they approve of and posting it from their source. They might miss an opportunity to alert though.

It is a lengthy list.

Chief among them, however, is one site that lives to mock us.

I won't name it, but you've probably heard of it.

that namecalls us "DUmmies" ??

This the most horrible repug boards i have even crossed. They are to rank along with Third Reich nostalgics.

They stalk individual DU members and would probably try to do us harm if they could, one way or another.

Pretty sad lives they must lead to do that.

Distorted and disturbed souls would be more proper qualification

OK, lets say it was a RW source. I didnt see the link before it was removed, so I don't know.

There is video, and you provided it, of Kerry saying exactly what your OP was about. I don't understand the hide in this context. It makes no sense at all. The point about objecting to RW sources is when the material therein is suspect. There is nothing suspect about this. He said it.

Sid

it could get locked without dinging your hidden post rating.

I am FUCKING SICK of people linking to dubious RW sites here. You're not sure of the source? Click on the site's homepage and take 15 seconds to glance around.

Could you please post the list of dubious RW sites so I know which ones to avoid. I have no idea which are taboo here.

Most likely I have never been to them anyhow. But I don't want to make people FUCKING SICK by inadvertently posting a link from a site that someone disapproves of.

Peace and NO H8.

The one the OP linked was as blatant as they come.

Oh, and RationalWiki is a good place if you have a hard time identifying RW bullshit when it smacks you in the face: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Webshites

I can spot it pretty easily.

If a site is owned by Glenn Beck - probably RW BS
If every story on a site's main page is about how liberals suck and Obama is dum, it MIGHT be RW BS
If it's RT.com - it's bullshit
If there are racist, homophobic rants all over a site - they have no place on DU

Like I said, if a story is legit, you will find it on a more credible site.

Truth is that sometimes it's hard to find an acceptable source.

If the video is a fake, that's one thing, but if it's legit and happens to be on the Blaze or WND, I'd like to know exactly what DU rule is being broken.

It's clear from replies in this thread that if the video is legit, the source is secondary and not a break of rules.

Each juror is allowed free rein to interpret what our community standards are.

Moderators followed explicit rules, there were always grey areas but they were discussed until clarity was found.

These days it all depends on who is called to be a juror and they're free to not follow the rules at all.

So, in answer to my question, no rule was broken; there is no specific rule about RW sites as sources.

There is to some degree for hosts and the SOP, but not for jurors.

It's a free for all.

and that is why no rule was broken in voting to hide it.
Whether our rules are working to keep this a vibrant community of civil discourse among center-left Democrats, liberals, and progressives is a different issue.

additional data if you'd like to explore.

sometimes contains incorrect information, I see no reason to do research on a site I'm not interested in. Neither am I new to civility.

Ya know every now and then even a blind squirrel finds an acorn.

I'm not aware that there is such a thing, is there one that you know of?

I'd imagine a collective effort to collate the obvious would be rather simple for those who interested in more than simply asking petulant questions...

If I see news reported on these that I think are noteworthy, I look for the same story on mainstream sites first, then liberal sites second.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/04/08/717716/-Compendium-of-Right-Wing-Websites#

Sid

Yeah, for what? This place is whacky today

You make a good point about hosts not being able to lock obvious RW links. I didn't know they couldn't do that

I don't think he was the alerter.

and was letting PeaceNikki know that some other DUer chose to alert.

Chastise the alerter, not me.



Sid

I need to get you on my jury ban list ASAP!

then posted in your thread that he/she alerted. why didn't that person just let you know so you could delete it WITHOUT alerting, especially since hidden posts add up to eventual loss of posting privileges?

I had deleted the link. Anyway the alert was done.

It is always smart to google your topic to see where the information appears.

To my knowledge, there is no available list to show what sites are acceptable and what sites are not. That was certainly an overzealous alerter and jury. As far as I'm concerned, you don't owe anyone an apology.

If the story is valid, then there should not be a hide just based on source...imo.

IMHO, its only an issue to link to a RW site if the site is attacking Democrats or asserting something ridiculous or contentious.

Kerry actually said what is alleged. Its was not an attack on him or any other Democrat.

At the very least, the OP should have been given the opportunity to remove the link which they were in the process of doing when the alert was put in.

She is from France and I don't expect her to know every little thing about our press. I just love the fact that we attract internationals to DU that enjoy posting here. Lots of Canadian friends post here, would love to know how many from all over.

I've seen over the years someone post an authentic story, but used a RWing site and got scolded for it, maybe they don't know them all. Also we have people here that love to spy on what the RWing sites/blogosphere is always up to. I don't, I don't even have cable anymore.
Then there are the RW hack pieces from the Weekly Standard or the American Spectator, that should get treated like the trash they are.

Totally different situations imo, but DU3 is more strict about sources and not being from the RWing variety...I think you've noticed that too. DU2 and DU1 were not as restrictive, but still a hack story got roasted.

GD is always like that. However still an innocent mistake.

but it sounds like a bad hide to me. Juries screw up sometimes. Also, there is often disagreement about what might constitute a "right-wing" source.

In fact I just wanted to let know that I dont wanted to prpvoke any trouble.
That say...i believe the censorship was more toward the topic of the OP and the RW link was only an excuse.