-9 votes

Re:Why Your Husband Was Banned from the Daily Paul

Don't Ban Me Bro,

I think we should hold a Dp trial for banned members who Michael feels might deserve it.

The three judges will be the owner,mods, and members all get a vote



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I hired a private defense agency

and brought the case of a banned member to their attention. According to their law, these bans are unlawful. The plaintiff is one Vinceableworld, and will be representing himself.

Michael, are you ready to come to the bargaining table and avoid a firefight? We don't want to have to send out teams to obtain restitution directly from you person.

Don't think Helfeld or bigmike can defend you. They're big, but not big enough. Best to make a compromise settlement.

I say ...

if any kind of forum arbitration services are in demand and not being provided in the market that is an opportunity.

I say if forum arbitration services are desired people will pay.

I do not agree with all of the conclusions presented in comments below, but I do agree property rights are the best approach. A forum ban is kind of like pro choice/pro life. Surely there are multiple rights. No one denies Michael possesses certain ownership rights but do not people who contribute content also possess rights to their work? I am not offering any suggestions other than ..

I say anyone who believes there is potential in non-biased or property rights biased forum arbitration services ought to be the next successful entrepreneur creating a new service in the market instead of demanding anyone provide such a service for free.

Well.....

Sometimes a nerve gets hit. We all react differently to nerve pain, hence different reactions, irregardless of how knowledgeable we are of the affected nerve!

Michael has always been

Michael has always been patient and understanding with me. Instead of airing this here, why not contact Michael privately and work it out. He has given me more than 2 new lives.

This sounds like a

This sounds like a collectivist idea.
Never mind property rights, and the work it took to create the property to it’s current status.

Now that it has value you want to step in and try to control it.
You need to get your own property then you can control it yourself.

Better yet, let your nosy neighbor TELL you what you can do with it.

NOSHEEPLE

When you disagree with an

When you disagree with an idea, you ought to provide a reason why. Instead what you have done is try to suggest that his idea is somehow inconsistent with libertarianism. That is not correct. You are correct that property rights allow Michael to do what he wishes to do. Freedom of speech still gives the right to suggest ideas or ways of running things.

I don't agree with his idea either, because if they were banned there was most likely a good reason, and because no real reason for unbanning them was provided. But attacking him by saying he's not a real libertarian because of a suggestion he made to a site owner is ridiculous, and arguments centered around trying to prove the opponent isn't a libertarian need to decline around here.

Mine was of observation and

Mine was of observation and suggestion, yours is of accusation and implication.

NOSHEEPLE

Truth of the matter is, it is

Truth of the matter is, it is Michael's site, he can do what he wants.

However there are times when I wonder why he doesn't just shut it down, he seems to imply he doesn't enjoy it/it isn't profitable (not sure which) frequently.

In fairness, if many people believe that Michael "censors too much" or "picks favorites" or whatnot, they need to get together and create a "new daily paul site" without "censorship/favorites".

Then allow the free market to dictate which site sinks or floats.

Re: "doesn't enjoy it/it isn't profitable".

Hmmmm.

This site is one of the cradles of the r3V0Lution.
Cradle, Ark, Shortbus, whatever. It is a garden of growing Liberty.

Revolutions are generally not fun, nor profitable.
The first one wasn't.

I highly doubt Michaels' motivation to create this site was for fun or profit.
I would venture to say it was a higher calling.

As far as the OP's original post,
Michael is a dictator, yet a very benevolent one.
I sincerely believe he respects our participation and our input.
A "court" is not appropriate, however one may always share opinion with Michael.

As we have seen in the past, he is very benevolent and has many times reconsidered
revocations and allowed those individuals back into the forum, the fold, our lives.

People make mistakes.
Sometimes that leads to being banned.
I make mistakes in life sometimes.
I may not use the right words or lash out unjustly at times.
I have learned how to remedy those few incidents from our fellow member TwelveOhOne.
Simply admit your mistake followed by,
I love You. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you. And mean it.
Then move along and move forward.

*(This is all just my lowly opinion.
I don't know Michael.
He has never replied to any of my posts.
We have never had a discussion.
So I could be completely wrong.
But I don't think so.)*

Gosh, I love this place!


Exercise your Liberty.


America Rising.
The Constitution Stands.

"That the pen is mightier than the sword would be proven false; if I should take my sword and cut off the hand that holds the pen" - American Nomad

TwelveOhOne's picture

Thank you for the kind words

I'm going through a lot right now with the concussion and symptoms. Apologies to sibling comment, we (doctors and I) are working on the correct approach, hopefully I'll be better soon. I'll try to reduce my output in the meantime.

I'm sorry.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

You haven't been paying

You haven't been paying attention to his recent posts.

Sure I have.

I think what you meant to say was "perhaps" or "maybe" I have not been paying attention to his recent posts.

Because that would be polite and proper.
As opposed to a statement that purports to know what I am paying attention to.

Besides, I did run a disclaimer at the bottom saying I could be wrong!

http://www.dailypaul.com/316688/whos-online-and-why#comment-3384663


Exercise your Liberty.


America Rising.
The Constitution Stands.

"That the pen is mightier than the sword would be proven false; if I should take my sword and cut off the hand that holds the pen" - American Nomad

Just glad the rules are clear now..

generalizations and painting with a wide brush is perfectly allowed and even encouraged, UNLESS it happens to be about gays. Where are the people who are 'banned' for doing the same exact thing to anyone who dares have a Christian view? Painting with a wide brush and generalizing Christians is acceptable of course.

"We are all equal here on the animal farm, it's just that some of us are more equal than others."

This is Michaels property

He can ban you for looking at him funny if he chooses. He can alter the rules if he wants, pray he doesn't alter them further! ;)

how 'bout just

obeying the rules set by the site owner.

a trial is to determine guilt - that's already been determined.

a trial then determines a sentence. that too has already been determined.

just obey the rules.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

Pete Townsend Kicks Abbie Hoffman

...off the stage...bashing him in the head with his guitar.
THE MORAL of THE STORY:
"Do NOT mess with someone else's gig"...PERIOD!

http://youtu.be/Q8BYgzIEHIY

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

pete townsend is a piece of

pete townsend is a piece of shit. You can also view his ARREST for child porn on youtube

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution

I agree but that was not the

I agree but that was not the point.

B&

Hamma time

Oh! You Americans with your DUE process

and FAIR trials. This is always so much easier in Mexico.
-- Ned Flanders (AKA The Devil)

I agree with the majority so far; the owner can do as he/she likes. If we don't like it we can always leave.

Not Knowing How....

...to spell the name "Michael" after SIX YEARS, could get a person banned.

It IS the man's name......
.....it's USUALLY "capitalized".

(What does capitalized mean?...google it)

BE AFRAID....BE VERY AFRAID....(echoing laughter...fade-out...)

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

I think we should just tell somone else what and how they....

So now we just tell Michael N what and how he should deal with his property? Are you kidding. I think you should just leave and stop coveting other peoples property.

If Michael kicks you off his property Best to just Get Go Leave get back on your own property. If you want judges go set up your own social network and appoint all the judges you want.

sovereign

How to Expand the Daily Paul Brand?

I was thinking this may be homebase for the Daily Paul activists but its less of a recruiting space than before. It may be worth while to have a collective (and independent) effort to add a new wing to the amusement park (website) for novices. Who knows maybe the right arrangement can generate passive income for Michael..

LMAO

This is Michael's house. If he says you can't come in, you don't come in. You come to a man's site and you want to decide how it is run. This site has been host to so many people and opinions. I don't think that any of us have the right to make demands. People who have been banned, earned it.

Formerly rprevolutionist

If the process could be

If the process could be automated it might be somewhat of a community self policing setup which would significantly reduce Michael's moderating workload. Reducing his moderating workload alone might be a huge benefit. This is the reason, afaik, that Michael closed registrations (so he doesn't need to deal with problematic people returning over & over). Automate & let the community self manage this aspect, but always with Michal having veto power over any community managed decisions because as you mentioned the DP is his property. I'm just looking at it from the perspective of reducing his workload as I know first hand how difficult & time consuming it can be to manage a large online community.

...

LOL

this reminds me of people who freak out when their facebook isn't allowing them to log in. How sad is it that WITHOUT a website we freak out and don't know what to do.

A suggestion, go out and LIVE.

If this site died tomorrow I wouldn't go into convulsions and freak out and I laugh when people hold up online communities as if life itself will end IF they can't login or comment.

http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana

It's Michael's Ark

It's his decision which 'animals' stay or go.
Being a commentor on the DP is a privilege, not a right.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Does that mean that the Constitution is of no effect here?

This would seem to place the rights of owners of property above the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence which guarantee "unalienable" rights, not privileges.

Even if a club or society publishes rules of membership, and applies those rules to exclude certain individuals as members, it seems to me that even those rules must be subject to the Constitution.

At the very least there might be an opportunity to debate the conflict of "rights" that always exists and to use these events of exclusion as a means of education.

In this case it would appear that the right to "free" speech is being denied to certain individuals on the say so of the owner of the DP. I think the idea of having a debate about the exclusion and voting on it has merit. The result of the vote could be like that of a plebiscite as opposed to a referendum the latter of which is mandatory I believe rather than advisory like the former. The final decision would then rest with Michael Nystrom but at least all sides of the debate could be heard and pondered by as many as were involved in it.

The idea of a hierarchy of rights has been mooted before and at the present time it seems that the right of all members of a society to equal treatment is being regarded as superior to the right to practise one's religious belief. This is similar to the present situation.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

Do you understand private

Do you understand private property rights?

Perhaps not.

So far as I do understand them they apply to property that is truly private, including personal possessions legally owned. This would mean any house or business premises, that one occupies legally, either rented or owned.

The only part of the Bill of Rights that applies to this private property would appear to be the 4th. Amendment which states that "a right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

This seems to me to be a negative right, protecting a private person and his private property, residential or business, and confers no special powers upon a private business owner to act contrary to the law within his own business, in which he deals with members of the public who also enjoy certain legally protected rights. Any such special powers would be a positive right, which seems to be what is being asserted here, and this positive right, so far as I know, is not expressed, or implied, in the Constitution.

If you can point out to me where such a special power is expressed or implied in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, which are the only documents I have referenced and which are the supreme law of the United States of America, then i would be grateful to you for the information.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)