-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

Comment viewing options

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

ROFL (T)DP isn't an alphabet govt agency

and therefore isn't beholden to the Constitution. 'Free speech' is something the federal govt 'shall not' deny/limit. No one wants the restrictions we place on government to be extended to 'us'. We're free. Michael's DP is his sovereign empire and he can make up whatever rules he wants.
The DoI is also concerned with government largesse, not what individuals do with their property.
How you came up with what you did is beyond me, but I thought it very funny, if not somewhat naive.

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

Free speech is protected by the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment prohibits the Congress, not the Federal government, from making any law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,...".

This is spelling out one application of liberty, one of the "unalienable rights" that are held to be "endowed by their Creator" to "all men" who are also "created equal". The Declaration also states "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,..." Governments usually secure such rights by suing at law anyone who fails in their duty to protect such rights or acts to abridge them.

This then brings into view anyone within the jurisdiction of the United States, which government is bound by the Bill of Rights. The Judicial Branch of the Federal government is duty bound to enforce the Bill of Rights on anyone within their jurisdiction who is in breach of their duty to protect the freedoms of their fellow Americans or who has acted to abridge them.

To suggest as you do that anyone who is in a private business can act to abridge the rights of those using their business premises and their services, for the purpose for which they were intended, merely as a consequence of their being the owner of the business would imply that such ownership trumps the higher law of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

This idea that a property right, if indeed such can be shown to apply in this situation, gives one the unrestricted freedom to act as one wishes regardless of any higher law is indeed, to use your own description, very naive.

"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)

So...the "Right" to Practice.....

...one's religion, or religious belief is "inferior" to the "rights" of the members of a society...????

In a way...This "ARK" is Michael's "Church" or club.

To "compel" the owner of such to accept mob rule is "unacceptable",
being akin to desecration and disruption of the liturgy or homily during a church service.
Or to compel girls to be allowed membership in the boy scouts?

This is Michael's "gig"...with a capital "G".
Didn't Pete Townsend (of The Who) throw Abby Hoffman off HIS stage?

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

That is not exactly what I said.

I was simply pointing out, without judgement, that the idea of a hierarchy of rights is already being implemented today, in the United States, with the right to freedom of religion, i.e the right to practise one's religion, being subordinated to the right to equal treatment. The same is true of the right of a property owner to implement their religious beliefs in how they conduct their business. This is also being subordinated to the right to equal treatment. I think that the present situation here is very similar inasmuch as one right is being subordinated to another.

In the present situation we have the owner of a website, that holds itself out to be a practitioner of Constitutional principles, claiming the right to exclude anyone whose ideas he doesn't approve of in spite of that person having an unalienable right to speak freely what he or she believes to be true.

Now, one may argue that the person being excluded is in fact exercising a right that is not unalienable, inasmuch as the content of the speech is itself unlawful and cannot be protected by the same divine Lawgiver who grants the right. This is I believe an argument that I personally would agree with. However to merely assert that ownership of the website alone confers a higher right to the owner to suppress lawful speech is to my way of thinking unsupportable as a Constitutional principle.

"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)

Let me make an analogy.Can I

Let me make an analogy.

Can I come onto your front lawn and start shouting obscenities through a bullhorn through your bedroom window?

If that doesn't make it clear to you, how about I come into your bedroom and start shouting through the bullhorn?

So, you see, your rights end for the most part at my private property.

Now, that's all an oversimplification, but I hope you can understand that you can't go yelling on someone else's property and that freedom of speech doesn't apply there.

What you are describing are instances of unlawful speech.

As I mentioned above in my last paragraph this is the kind of speech which is not protected by divine law. I believe the Supreme Court has found that profanity, obscenity and pornography are all forms of protected speech. This is an indication of the degradation of American society and has likely led to a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the speech that the Bill of Rights protects. In any event the act you describe is criminal trespass since the trespasser does not have permission to be on the owner's property. That is quite different in many respects to the situation we are discussing here.

Let me posit another scenario. You have organised a party, rented and decorated a public hall and have invited people to it to celebrate the founding of the nation and the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Most of the people you do not know and many of them pay you to defray the costs of the party. You also sell advertising to help cover the cost incurred.

One of the guests, in an amiable manner, makes statements that you find politically disagreeable. Although the statements can be defended factually and are logically valid you nevertheless are offended by them since they lead to conclusions that you deem to be racist in nature. Therefore on this ground alone you eject the guest in question and defend your actions with reference to the fact that the party is being held on your property and that you are the organiser. The fact that the party is celebrating the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights guaranteeing freedom of speech of the very nature that offended you seems to have been forgotten.

"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)

Thanks David, I think we get

Thanks David, I think we get each other's points. I see the irony, but really, we aren't so worried about individuals restricting free speech. I'm worried about governments restricting free speech.

The government has the power to change society whereas individuals act to restrict speech only on their property (e.g. in the party in your example).

So, I think we agree, but I see the irony that an individual would act this way. However, if someone "crosses the line" at my party, it is my right to get rid of them. Individual property rights can trump individual freedom of speech; despite the irony of holding the party to celebrate the nullification of the government's ability to restrict speech.

The issue is now one of might makes right I'm afraid.

If you believe that you have the "right" to eject someone from a space that you have rented because:

a) you do not agree with their political opinions: and
b) because you believe that, as the renter of the space, your property "rights" trump that person's right of free speech; then you are simply doing what all governments have done throughout history, asserting your power over another individual on spurious grounds claimed to be lawful jurisdiction.

This is not an easy point to grasp because for most people property rights do in fact trump so many other rights. However, all that is being asserted, when they ARE exercised against another's LAWFUL rights, is mere bestial territoriality. If our God given unalienable rights, which ought to be at least informed by His spiritual Law, do not seek to raise us above the basic elements of this world, then we are still captives of these elements, or principles, that are based upon the mere laws of bestial Nature in their lowest form.

Having said this, I am aware that I am in a very small minority since many who embrace their "unalienable" rights do not believe in the God who gives them and many who do believe have accepted presuppositions that fly in the face of the teachings of the New Testament. This is the result, I believe, of an inevitable declension from even the limited aspirations of the sentiments expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

It is my belief that all the rights so many cherish ARE, in some degree, the corollary of the Laws of Nature and not the spiritual Law of God. If this is the case then Christians must recognise that they are called to follow the spiritual Law as laid down by the Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles and depart from the principles of so called Natural Law which have been superseded by the Law of the Spirit and Life.

"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth." (Matthew 5:5)

meek (miːk)

1. patient, long-suffering, or submissive in disposition or nature; humble (i.e. Not asserting one's rights but leaving one's vindication to God.)

"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)