OUR REFORMATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT Q: Curt: “Should The First Amendment be [

OUR REFORMATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
Q: Curt: “Should The First Amendment be [insert idea here]?:

All,
Our reformation of the first amendment consists of:

a) The requirement for testifiable, truthful, and reciprocal speech in public to the public in matters public (including commerce) to prevent false promises deception and lying; This ends the left forever, because all leftists promises are those of a removal of responsibility by social construction of denial of the four categories of the laws of nature: lying.

b) The prohibition on suppression of testifiable, truthful, reciprocal speech. This ends the suppression of uncomfortable truths so that we may find solutions to problems that exist rather than ignore them.

c) The prohibition on conspiracy to cancel constraining us to courts for the negativa, and legislature for the positiva thus not evading due process – ending all variations on cancel culture and social construction by bypass of the legislature and the people (including lawfare).

d) The restoration of defamation by libel and slander to whether it’s true or not instead of whether the harm is material or not to end undermining.

e) To provide a special exception for Christian religion if necessary – given that fundamentalism is an untestifable claim and therefore violates truthful reciprocal speech.

Note that, we would prefer that we license Christian deism and natural law since it’s at least analogistically not-false, it’s closed to misconstruing, and compatible with natural law. But that might not be possible given it’s tolerable by secularists, humanists, Catholics, mainstream protestants, but not so by evangelicals. This keeps the state out of the religion but encourages the Christian sects to reform.

Note that, It’s increasingly clear that we must very likely limit religions and in particular their manifestation in public in any form, to the Christian secular to evangelical, and only tolerate other religions – including the mass prosecution of religions for the behavior of their individuals adherents. This forces integration or departure. And as we know, the hostiles hide under religious protection.
I would never have thought this reasonable in the past, but my study of religion as the foundation of group evolutionary strategies, the incompatibility of those strategies, and the use of religions as a means of sedition, treason, and warfare changed my opinion – l like many opinions I’ve changed once I’ve done the work (despite that I don’t like some of what I’ve discovered.)

Cheers

Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute
The Science of Cooperation

Reply addressees: @tysonmaly