Welcome to Gaia! ::

I for one do. I expect people who are publishing misinformation and who have been disproven to republish them.

Now what about older books and authors? If they were disproven in the time that they were alive, they are held to the same standard. It is crap in my opinion to perpetuate bullshit and lies because of something being "old." Yes it's good to understand why someone thought a certain way and to look into the past to show how far we've come, this is not what I'm arguing against. What I am arguing against is the willful unchanging need to perpetuate the same crap because it's oh so hard to republish a corrected book or to get it peer reviewed before it goes out on book shelves. Can I get an amen?

I feel the price of freedom is that we grant those freedoms to those we disagree with.

I would rather have to work to educate people about misinformation than to give the authority to silence them.

I think one of the good examples is that Hutton's opinion on the origin of Wicca has been disputed by Huson's research. Since Hutton has said he did not fully investigate the situation out of respect to some of it's early founders- I feel that all the information available should be presented and a person should develop a well rounded understanding.

I also feel there is a historical value to reproducing earlier works. I own copies of Murray's books, not because I believe they are historical facts, but because they greatly influenced the modern pagan movement.

I understand the concern some of us feel about people being mislead, or taken advantage of. I also feel that there may be an over reaction to the disagreements. If someone claims to be something, how much harm is truly being done? Where do we draw the line between having a civil dispute with a discussion and putting ourselves in a position to try and police and regulate other people's thoughts?

In situations where someone's wellbeing is at stake, I feel there is cause to step in. I think short of that we need to be able to respect someone's ability to form their own opinions.

I do not feel we could establish a method for preventing what you or I might consider "pure misinformation" without impinging on the rights of those who merely disagree.

In the end, I feel this is about a level of control that should not be inflicted on others. While there are limits to our private and public speech, to allow either personal bullying or bureaucratic abuses to silence people who are not harming others is to deny their personal development and assert our will over their own.

Censorship is the weapon of a tyrant- be it by banning others from participation or bullying them into silence.