my frustration

I just am about to scream. My daughter regularly posts some nonsense about how mistreated Muslims are. This is supposed to consolidate the folks who agree with her, and silence those who do not. We should of course close our mouths so that we do not offend anyone. Those who publish anything about the risks of Islam to the west, are of course misunderstanding facts and bigoted.
Your sources repeat any and all transgressions on Palestinians, or immigrants who are mistreated by others not warmly welcoming any and all changes to their country. (What right do they have to want to keep their culture?) In the meanwhile, no one mentions or publishes to them the items in other media wherein Christians are burned to death, whole villages or sections of town burnt down.(As I read last week from a newspaper in England.) Or places where jihadists come in attack, rape, kill, enslave, or whatever, all while the police stand idly by refusing to protect the unbelievers.
Okay, we may agree that bigotry is wrong. But why is it not wrong when your folks do it? And your levels are so much worse. Someone is told they have to not wear hijab in public, or a school, while you burn someone to death. I think it reasonable to suggest that the west has the right to be concerned about these accounts. But apparently not.
I am frustrated in general. When did speaking the truth become controversial? I just watched a program about the conspiracy of 911. How it was a controlled explosion, that obviously it had this and this and this sign, physical and engineered examples of what must happen under certain conditions. I was able to put my prejudices aside, and say, you know this may be true. I listened to the facts. But whether it was really planned by George Bush, and his brother and cousin who ran the security in order to cover up and destroy the evidence for the worldcom and enron scandals-what the show posited, I could at least put my right wing, flag waving zeal aside in order to evaluate or at least listen to the opposition. The only way an intelligent conversation can ever be made is for folks to actually listen to each other.
In the western world, a person can be sued for defamation of character, lible, and such. He must not only have said something that hurt the reputation of another, he must have also meant to do so. One other thing is requisite. Whatever he said must be untrue. If he spread that which was unflattering, but was true, then he cannot be punished. This is so mind boggling to have to apologize for speaking that which is obvious, that which is uncomfortable, and that which is unflattering, even when it is blatantly true. We have an expression (meant to be laughable, or at least warning) "do not confuse me with the facts" /truth. How can a stable world function if it is not allowed to discuss the very foundation the society is founded upon. The only answers that appear to me are groupthink, and fear.