Huffington Post Censors Jesse Ventura on 9/11

A March 9 commentary submitted to Huffington Post by former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura was removed after publication by the site, which replaced it with a note stating that contributors are banned from engaging in conspiracy theories:

Editor's Note: The Huffington Post's editorial policy, laid out in our blogger guidelines, prohibits the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories -- including those about 9/11. As such, we have removed this post.

"I can't believe the Huffington Post today will practice censorship. I've got news for them," Ventura responded to the action. "I won't ever write for em again."

I get tired of a lot of the conspiracy stuff posted by users on the Drudge Retort, which gets 2-4 posts a day from Infowars, Prison Planet and similar sites, but I've never banned it. I know it's difficult for Huffington Post to deal with fringe stuff -- the conservative group blog Red State kicked off birthers and truthers last month -- but the Post is doing a public disservice by allowing no discussion at all on a subject. Ventura is a former governor. When prominent people challenge the government, the idea that their views should be censored on the grounds they are a "conspiracy theory" is antithetical to open debate in a free society. Any far-out idea could be dismissed as conspiracist. Would the Post have censored Jim Garrison from writing about the Kennedy assassination? The site is running Jenny McCarthy's dangerous autism vaccine quackery, a view widely discredited by medical experts.

To combat the censorship, I republished Ventura's censored 9/11 commentary yesterday and gave it major news banana treatment on the Retort:

You didn't see anything about it in the mainstream media, but at a recent conference in San Francisco, more than 1,000 architects and engineers signed a petition demanding that Congress begin a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9-11.

That's right, these people put their reputations in potential jeopardy -- because they don't buy the government's version of events. They want to know how 200,000 tons of steel disintegrated and fell to the ground in 11 seconds. They question whether the hijacked planes were responsible or whether it could have been a controlled demolition from inside that brought down the twin towers and WTC Building 7.

His views aren't faring too well in the Retort discussion. But they deserve to be heard.


Umm, that's not censorship, it's editorial decision making.

If you find a comment promoting pharma products and remove that, is that censorship? How is that actually different? The site owner makes the rules.

It's censorship if the govt bans content. If Ventura wants to get his POV out, setting up his own site or blog is trivially easy.

I don't throw the word around often when it doesn't involve government, but here Huffington Post is removing user contributions based solely on the idea they espouse. The word censorship does not exclusively refer to government action. This is a clear case of media censorship.

.... and people who run media sites do that all the time, Rogers. Is it censorship if you submit an article to a print magazine and they reject it? This isn't different.

There's absolutely a difference between what Huffington did and normal editorial review.

The editor's note makes clear that it deleted Ventura's column because of the idea that it contained. No one is allowed to express that idea on the site. Huffington Post has 3,000 unpaid bloggers whose submissions go online immediately without editorial review. Thousands of ideas are expressed without restriction, but Ventura and others who question 9/11 are removed.

When a media outlet has a blanket ban on the expression of an idea, that's censorship. If Huffington Post had a review process where it accepted some 9/11-related submissions and rejected others based on a subjective editorial criteria, that would be different. But that's not what happened here.

Let us not forget that the "official" report was also a conspiracy theory.

Any site who publishes what that says as "fact" and deletes any other alternative views as "conspiracy" is not only guilty of censorship, but guilty of not practicing what they themselves are preaching.

And why do you suppose article submissions get rejected? ....because of the idea(s) being espoused, that's why.

You may dislike their editorial decisions, but since it's not a govt run site, it's not censorship. There's nothing stopping Ventura's views from getting out (as you showed by publishing them).

Media outlets are under no obligation to publish views they dislike, for any reason. I certainly don't want someone coming to me and telling me what I have to publish (in the interest of fairness, balance, whatever) on my blog. I decide what goes there, and, while I rarely get rid of (non spam) comments, I have been known to edit out swear words. My site, my rules - your site, your rules.

You may dislike their editorial decisions, but since it's not a govt run site, it's not censorship.

If you want to believe that the word censorship only applies to government action, that's your prerogative. You're ignoring the existing definition, however.

Here's Merriam-Webster, as well as a PBS discussion of the word's meaning that includes this nice concise definition: "Censorship is a word of many meanings. In its broadest sense it refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves."

My site, my rules - your site, your rules.

No one is questioning your authority, or that of Huffington Post, to choose what you publish. I make no bones about the fact that comments run here entirely at my discretion.

But there are actions you could take on your blog that would constitute censorship. For instance, if you deleted all comments that praised a rival Smalltalk vendor or criticized your own company, that would fit the definition.

This is censorship, within a context of editorial selectivity. However, you can't follow the letter of the law all the time, so if they have a rule against conspiracy theories, I'd contend it is a good "GUIDELINE" but not a good rule.

Jesse Ventura is a former US Navy Seal, former Governor of Minnesota, and deserves to be heard on the issue.

It's not like he's constantly writing about the same thing, or always updating a blog.

Besides, it's a "conspiracy theory" right now that says the republicans are stone-walling congress.... and I do believe that has been reported on at length.

Do the right thing. Give some voice to a great American hero - Jesse Ventura.

Thank you.

Huffington's hypocrisy shines through like a diamond. If they're going to censor "conspiracy theories" then why do they publish articles from Bill Maher and Jenny McCarthy ranting and raving against vaccines and modern medicine? HP has articles nearly every day from Woo-Woos claiming that the Big Pharmas and the food companies are trying to poison everyone with vaccines and medicines and "processed" foods. If that isn't a conspiracy theory I don't know what is! But they publish it anyhow.

Why is this the only "conspiracy" you won't allow for discussion, HP? Why the hypocrisy?

I am on board Jessie V. 2012
I believe!

Thank you for publishing Jesse Ventura's remarks on 9/11. I appreciate your instinctual sense of fairness.

The social dementia which leads to this type of fear-based censorship is documented in an entire issue of American Behavioral Scientist Journal.

The vast majority of Americans are feeble AT BEST, when it comes to critical thinking. If it comes out of that idiot 57" flat screen...then 'IT MUST BE TRUE'. So, when confronted with an idea that shakes their foundations and belief systems...they simply attack the messenger.

It's far easier to simply deny truth, then to start from scratch. And a lot less scary to their limited, myopic, government fed psyche. So you go right on vilifying the messengers of truth...that's your karma to deal with.

Me? 9/11 was a CLASSIC, FALSE FLAG TERROR event! Now, you can start throwing your barbs of fear at me...Keep up the great work Jessie

FYI: HuffPost allows Oswald Photo article to stay up but deletes Jesse Ventura blog entry. When is a conspiracy a conspiracy?

Hany Farid, Dartmouth Scientist, Says Controversial Oswald Rifle Photo Real


I thought all this 911 truth stuff was crap. That was before I began to read the research on the fall of WTC7.

Once you accept the well supported fact that is was a controlled demolition and that these operations take many days to plan and implement, then the whole house of cards that is the 9/11 official story begins to crumble.

Skeptical? Just spend a little time researching WTC7. WTC7 is just the beginning of the evidence.
Start here:

At the very least, a new investigation is needed! What is wrong with authorizing a new investigation if there is nothing to hide? Money the issue? What about all the money being spent on the war on terror? A war based on a false premise?

Huffington Post does not accept free speech. Anything talking about 9-11 is immediately taken down. I have had my comments removed, time and time again, and they don't let me post anything at all really. Wake Up Sheeple! Visit

We are living in a society that has been brainwashed by our government , the only reason Jesse Ventura's series continues is because of the money it is generating for them , but god bless them none the less. The government takeover is complete and sweeping , all you have to do to wake up is stop watching mainstream media for a couple of weeks and the brainwashing starts to wear off and you begin to think for yourself again which is dangerous for our government. Anyone that looks at 911 and believes the governments fairy tale about happened is seriously brainwashed, the reason it is not readily apparent to a lot of us is that all of us are brainwashed to one degree or another by the mass media. The good thing about this country is that we can take it back at the ballot box anytime we so choose ,of course you would have to completely ignore this mass media machine when picking a candidate which is difficult but not impossible. Just think about everything that's happened since 1963 without considering the governments explanation and the truth will be apparent, try it it works !

HuffPo does not even allow discussion of what isn't being discussed. I pointed out how Gov. Ventura shared with Rosie O'Donnell on her Sirius Satellite show that HuffPo's claim that it "prohibits the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories" was a LIE (love how truth-tellers do not mince words!) and offered Oliver Stone's JFK submission from 2009 ( ) among others.

My comment never even made it up. It wasn't about conspiracy (unless you count pointing out the agenda in play at HuffPo), but about challenging the a factual claim that was easily shown to be false. Quibble all you want about the semantics of the word "censor"; the gatekeeping is unmistakable. There are countless examples of such at HuffPo.

Rather sad for someone who wrote "On Becoming Fearless...In Love, Work, and Life". I would put Bill Maher in that same hypocritical category as well. When he was trying to argue his theory of disease on Real Time, he said something to the effect of, "I'm not saying you have to believe it, just that it deserves to be examined and considered." I do not have an argument with that, just that I consider there to be far more compelling arguments in favor of questioning the "official" 9/11 version (itself a "conspiracy theory" generated by an official whitewash commission).

Maher couldn't even bring himself to face the extent that Ventura's citations cast serious doubt on the official version, other than stating that he did not agree with everything in Jesse's book. Not quite the fired-up bravado that he showed when siccing his security staff on 9/11 audience protesters (berating his security for not "kicking ass" and calling truthers "crazy people").

Gov. Ventura could have calmly and rationally handled Maher's excited tirade given half the chance.

The question has to be, in whose interest is it to choose not to follow the truth wherever it leads? Bill's in showbiz, Arianna loves to be on TV, and both serve an agenda that pretends to speak truth to power...but only "acceptable" truths. Sadly, they are carrying water for those who have committed unforgivable crimes against the citizens of America and the world.

Well, at least it pays well, I suppose.

Ventura is a clown and his show is a joke.

An astrologer friend and myself, we are in agreement that somewhere between now and the end of 2024 the cover-up on 9/11 will be exposed, among a lot of similar cover-ups within government and elsewhere.

Briefly, this has to do with the transit of Pluto through the astrological sign of Capricorn, which deals with man's so-called higher achievements.....large systems and structures such as governments, big business, finance and the economy, international trade, etc. The physical level would also be affected, including geophysical (cities, nations and their infrastructures, locations).

Pluto is not a 'cause' of anything, merely a symbolic representation of the function of necessary transformation that is inherent in life -- root out what is corrupt, outmoded, dysfunctional and thus transform, or suffer the crises of destruction, upheaval, loss and forced change. Pluto, after all, is not called "the Lord of the Underworld" for nothing, a most powerful entity in the mythological world, whose word and works governing Fate is the result of inexorable natural law. Human history is the primary evidence of this law.

Dick Cheney is seen, through the maze of observations concerning what is considered by many as a government cover-up of the truth(s) behind 9/11, as likely the chief architect of this disaster. Obviously, he will not last another 14 years. He will probably be found out, and if not brought to justice, seems slated to suffer a heart attack, cardiac arrest or the like. Then there are the rest, regarding which my friend and I spare ourselves needless conjecture.

It is easy to debunk astrology without knowing much about it; there are those who love to do this. And they mistake the messenger for the message. Debunkers of truth, and of the methods for discovering such, will, like cockroaches, always be with us. For those with a real spirit of inquiry, it just takes a little patience to investigate this ancient art-science. Astrology is now undergoing a renaissance, with modern innovations and techniques facilitated by hi-tech and powerful software; many with scientific creditentials are studying it. It's a way to higher knowledge of oneself, and the mundane world.

Put the 9/11 event on your perpetual calendar in September of each year until 2024 and see whether there will be closure (you saw what happened to the steroids / doping issue when Pluto passed through Sagittarius, the period roughly between 1996 and 2010, with an aftermath period overlapping with Pluto's recent entry into Capricorn....we don't hear much about Barry Bonds or Lance Armstrong at the moment, but Pluto is not finished yet with cheating in sports).

Chickenshits, censoring Jesse - have you researched ANYTHING about the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon on 9/11? Why no wreckage? Why no bodies recovered? Why was all the surrounding surveillance footage - gas stations, etc. REMOVED by the FBI within hours of the alleged incident at the Pentagon? IT WAS A MISSILE - not a plane! WAKE UP!

AOL’s acquisition of the Huffington Post (for $315 million) was a great move. Prior to this acquisition one could only receive the wisdom of Marx, Ingles and Trotsky; now with the advent of Arianna Huffington’s progressive guide one can also be given the vast knowledge of Mao, Pol Pot, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro and that great bulwark of progressive freedom Stalin. An added benefit is that Arianna being born in Greece has no constraints in eliminating that nasty little impediment to achieving the socialist utopia, the First Amendment.

Add a Comment

All comments are moderated before publication. These HTML tags are permitted: <p>, <b>, <i>, <a>, and <blockquote>. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA (for which the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply).