Movies of this kind shoud NOT be banned!

[deleted]

"Yeah but the scientologists shouldn't assume that it's about Hubbard though it is of course. "

This sounds a lot like Seinfeld logic in the episode where Elaine threw someone's fur coat out the window, and is held responsible - not because she did that, because the owner doesn't know that - but because she was RESPONSIBLE for coats that evening. And she thinks this is wrong, because she shouldn't have to be held responsible for someone throwing a fur coat out the window just because she was in charge of the coats, although she DID throw the coat out the window, but the owner doesn't know that!

Heh.

And about free speech .. how does the ban work? No one can ban any movie, unless they have consent.

I mean, if the moviemaker has, for example, signed a lot of 'submissions', 'registrations' and 'applications', creating joinders between themselves (the human being) and the person (a legal fiction), then they have given their consent to being governed by the legal system, and must obey its rules.

If, however, a moviemaker is a freeman-on-the-land, there is NO authority above him except the Creator of the Universe, who could order or boss them around in any way, without their consent. There is no authority that could 'ban' their movie (whatever that 'ban' means in practice) or stop them from displaying and distributing it.

But then again, there are so many corporations that must obey the 'legal system', and so many authoritiies that can order them around, that they can easily be asked to not show or sell a certain movie, and that has nothing to do with free speech, because their compliance has nothing to do with the moviemaker directly, and thus nothing about his rights even enter into it.

I mean, if I own a film store, and someone asks me to not sell or show a certain movie, and I agree with the request, then it has nothing to do with his rights - I can decide whatever I want to sell and don't want to sell, without anyone being lawfully able to tell me what to do.

But if a film store is owned by people who have consented to being governed by a legal system, even if they don't want to agree to a request of not showing or selling a film, they can face serious problems, because they have been given lots of privileges by the 'system' - and those privileges can be withdrawn, taken away (that's the nature of 'privilege' - and people have given up their rights to get privileges - madness! Unlike rights, privileges can be given and taken away - rights are unalienable, and always exist - but we can consent to not use them), et cetera. So it's not profitable for a corporation/company/film store to deny a request from certain 'powers', especially if its owners have consented to being governed by the 'legal system'.

So technically nothing violates the right to free speech, if this is how the ban is handled.

However, if a freeman-on-the-land is just TOLD not to spread or sell the movie, with or without threats (like jailtime, fines, etc), then it is certainly alarming and completely unlawful. It cannot be done lawfully. Then there is certainly a problem, and it can be dealt with.

The thing is, 'they' are clever, and 'they' always use the 'legal system', because that way they have your consent to being ordered around by them, and there's nothing you can do about it, except become a freeman-on-the-land (which has its own drawbacks in a system so deeply already entrenched into this 'legal system' that its hard to find 'legal system-free' areas anymore) and claim your rights and stop being governed by a system originally designed for legal fictions.

In fact, the 'legal system' CAN only govern 'legal fictions', but if you perform a joinder between your real self (the living, human being) and your person (the legal fiction), then you must obey the corporate rules of the 'legal system', because when you perform a 'joinder', you essentially become a 'corporation'.

There is of course a bit of controversy about this, because it can be debated as to how official and lawful the joinder really is, when there is absolutely no full disclosure, and so on - things are kept hidden very well from us. And yet it's in plain sight every day. You see supposedly YOUR name written with all capital letters and surname first, and think nothing of it. You don't see that it's not your name at all, but the name of a legal fiction, the strawman, the 'person', that only exists on paper and inside computers.

Confused? I don't blame you, this is an extremely difficult thing to explain, and I am pretty bad at explaining things, but check out:

http://yourstrawman.com

and find "Meet Your Strawman" from youtube or some other video site - it's a humorous, 5-minute, grayscale video that explains the very basics of what a 'person' really is.

So when you talk about freedom of speech and other unalienable rights, you must see the larger picture first, and see how it all works, and what governs what, and so on. If I don't want to sell your movie in my store, it's not violating your freedom of speech - trying to force me to sell it would actually violate MY rights!

(I don't own a videostore, though - it was just an example)

People whining about rights but yet at the same time performing joinders is like a baby who is claiming they are an adult just because they have 'rights' written on their diapers. Who is going to take you seriously? TALK IS CHEAP, it's the actions that matter.

But if you CLAIM YOUR RIGHTS (in a lawfully competent way), and actually become a freeman-on-the-land, then it's like an adult who is handing the babysitter the diaper back and saying: "Here, I don't need this anymore, have a good day" and walking out the door to wherever he wants to go.

So, know the truth before you talk about rights, even freedom of speech. And remember that because rights are unalienable, they can't be GIVEN or TAKEN AWAY - not by a constitution, not by any bill - nothing. They already exist, and always have.

Constitutions and bills only try to PROTECT the already existing rights, they do not GIVE them to people. They exist to LIMIT THE POWERS of government and corporations that might otherwise try to VIOLATE those rights. But if people CONSENT freely, those rights can't be protected.

I mean, how do you protect someone from giving something away out of their own free will and consent? And yes, I know I said rights can't be given away, and they really aren't - they still exist, but I used a metaphor about giving, because it's easier to understand than if I had said: "you consent to not being able to use something you have", which is effectively almost the same thing as if you didn't have it.

It's like giving your computer to a neighbourg who has full power whether you get to ever use it or not, and who seals it in his cellar, and never lets you touch it. It is still yours, you technically still own it, but you just can't use it anymore, and you don't have access to it anymore.

People should know about this decpeption first, but they are too selfish, greedy and dumb - and they LUST for those privileges.. so much, that they don't mind giving up their rights to get them (and as I said, it's more like "not being able to use it" than "giving it", because the rights are still there).

But only after they KNOW about all this, can they ever hope to start EVEN wondering whether a consent is really consent if there is no full disclosure.. which is the point everyone should ponder, after they know the basics.