THE NATURAL LAW ON MEDIA CONTENT REGARDING: “News Outlets Are Liable for Others’ Facebook Comments, Australian Court Rules: Australian court says newspapers, TV stations that post their own articles should be considered publishers of defamatory comments” 1 – All copyright law is reduced to creative commons, and narrow interpretation. (Profound) 2 – All public speech: speech in public, to the public, in matters public must be testimonial form: Truthful, Reciprocal, Free of false promise, baiting into hazard, and proposing a competing solution that is truthful and reciprocal. 3 – Defamation by both libel (publication), and slander (speech) is restored. 4 – News (Twitter), Communication (Facebook), and Indexing (Google), as well as consumer banking, and consumer credit (visa/mc) are strategic infrastructure, and nationalized (the state takes a majority interest at the expense of investors as punishment for crimes against the people). 5 – Only content by Identity-Verified Individuals (credit card, phone number, drivers’ license, passport) may be shared outside of voluntary personal networks (friends, followers) by the publisher (platform). Identity of each individual determines jurisdiction of the individual. 6 – All individuals will be profiled for personality, moral, political, and religious biases (this is already extant). Individuals can opt into our out of jurisdictional, linguistic, moral, political, and religious biases (expose filters to users). 7 – Services will be provided for jurisdictions to (a) filter jurisdictions, (b) filter topics, (c) filter users, and (d) filter content. And jurisdictions may filter as they choose. 8 – Otherwise services may NOT filter content except pornography, gore, suicide, and crime. 10 – Services may NOT filter political content or any other content. Individuals that violate content selections will be limited to friends and followers networks. Or friends networks. Or destination (unshared). But they cannot be prohibited from direct voluntary communication within their voluntary network. 11 – All information about individuals, or produced by individuals is forever their property. 12 – All individuals have the right to be forgotten in entirety, but not selectively. AS SUCH All governments have the right and ability to self regulate platform content in their jurisdictions at their own cost, but may not externalize that cost nor involve the hosting service provider ( Platform ) in their internal matters. The united states will consider any attempt to externalize costs onto the service providers as a trade violation, and respond accordingly. AS SUCH The international network governance will be repatriated to the USG, and managed by a volunteer organization sworn to the USG law independent of all other law.
Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence
-
The Natural Law on Media Content
THE NATURAL LAW ON MEDIA CONTENT REGARDING: “News Outlets Are Liable for Others’ Facebook Comments, Australian Court Rules: Australian court says newspapers, TV stations that post their own articles should be considered publishers of defamatory comments” 1 – All copyright law is reduced to creative commons, and narrow interpretation. (Profound) 2 – All public speech: speech in public, to the public, in matters public must be testimonial form: Truthful, Reciprocal, Free of false promise, baiting into hazard, and proposing a competing solution that is truthful and reciprocal. 3 – Defamation by both libel (publication), and slander (speech) is restored. 4 – News (Twitter), Communication (Facebook), and Indexing (Google), as well as consumer banking, and consumer credit (visa/mc) are strategic infrastructure, and nationalized (the state takes a majority interest at the expense of investors as punishment for crimes against the people). 5 – Only content by Identity-Verified Individuals (credit card, phone number, drivers’ license, passport) may be shared outside of voluntary personal networks (friends, followers) by the publisher (platform). Identity of each individual determines jurisdiction of the individual. 6 – All individuals will be profiled for personality, moral, political, and religious biases (this is already extant). Individuals can opt into our out of jurisdictional, linguistic, moral, political, and religious biases (expose filters to users). 7 – Services will be provided for jurisdictions to (a) filter jurisdictions, (b) filter topics, (c) filter users, and (d) filter content. And jurisdictions may filter as they choose. 8 – Otherwise services may NOT filter content except pornography, gore, suicide, and crime. 10 – Services may NOT filter political content or any other content. Individuals that violate content selections will be limited to friends and followers networks. Or friends networks. Or destination (unshared). But they cannot be prohibited from direct voluntary communication within their voluntary network. 11 – All information about individuals, or produced by individuals is forever their property. 12 – All individuals have the right to be forgotten in entirety, but not selectively. AS SUCH All governments have the right and ability to self regulate platform content in their jurisdictions at their own cost, but may not externalize that cost nor involve the hosting service provider ( Platform ) in their internal matters. The united states will consider any attempt to externalize costs onto the service providers as a trade violation, and respond accordingly. AS SUCH The international network governance will be repatriated to the USG, and managed by a volunteer organization sworn to the USG law independent of all other law.
-
The Constitution and The Law Can Be Restored to Pre-Postmodern, Pre-Marxist, Pre
The Constitution and The Law Can Be Restored to Pre-Postmodern, Pre-Marxist, Pre-Civil War Terms, as A Federal Government Limited to The Defense of The States, and To the Adjudication of Differences in Material Property Between the States, https://t.co/aWE9Yc0F5W
-
The Constitution and The Law Can Be Restored to Pre-Postmodern, Pre-Marxist, Pre
The Constitution and The Law Can Be Restored to Pre-Postmodern, Pre-Marxist, Pre-Civil War Terms, as A Federal Government Limited to The Defense of The States, and To the Adjudication of Differences in Material Property Between the States, https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/the-constitution-and-the-law-can-be-restored-to-pre-postmodern-pre-marxist-pre-civil-war-terms-as-a-federal-government-limited-to-the-defense-of-the-states-and-to-the-adjudication-of-differences-i/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 16:44:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267497244267368450
-
The Constitution and The Law Can Be Restored to Pre-Postmodern, Pre-Marxist, Pre-Civil War Terms, as A Federal Government Limited to The Defense of The States, and To the Adjudication of Differences in Material Property Between the States,
Oct 22, 2019, 12:39 PM
—“I think only that the constitution and the law can be restored to pre-postmodern, pre-marxist, pre-civil war terms, as a federal government limited to the defense of the states, and to the adjudication of differences in material property between the states, and where hostile cities are involuntarily converted to city states, and where all local norm, custom, and tradition is determined by at the local level, and only investment at the state. … And I absolutely positively without question know how to do it – because the alternative for the “Left” is so terrible they will agree rather than risk it. That is why have confidence – I am very slow and deliberate and thorough, but I am very, very, good at what I do. It will take 1/3 of 1% of our males to make it happen, and it will happen quickly. And frankly we will hope the enemy resists – because …. “— Curt
(worth repeating)
-
The Constitution and The Law Can Be Restored to Pre-Postmodern, Pre-Marxist, Pre-Civil War Terms, as A Federal Government Limited to The Defense of The States, and To the Adjudication of Differences in Material Property Between the States,
Oct 22, 2019, 12:39 PM
—“I think only that the constitution and the law can be restored to pre-postmodern, pre-marxist, pre-civil war terms, as a federal government limited to the defense of the states, and to the adjudication of differences in material property between the states, and where hostile cities are involuntarily converted to city states, and where all local norm, custom, and tradition is determined by at the local level, and only investment at the state. … And I absolutely positively without question know how to do it – because the alternative for the “Left” is so terrible they will agree rather than risk it. That is why have confidence – I am very slow and deliberate and thorough, but I am very, very, good at what I do. It will take 1/3 of 1% of our males to make it happen, and it will happen quickly. And frankly we will hope the enemy resists – because …. “— Curt
(worth repeating)
-
Why Do Children Go with The Mother Given the Data?
Why Do Children Go with The Mother Given the Data? https://t.co/iQiwbrZLni
-
Why Do Children Go with The Mother Given the Data?
Why Do Children Go with The Mother Given the Data? https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/why-do-children-go-with-the-mother-given-the-data/
Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 16:43:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267496915459084289
-
Why Do Children Go with The Mother Given the Data?
WHY DO CHILDREN GO WITH THE MOTHER GIVEN THE DATA?
—-“immature children are the responsibility of the mother in the event of a divorce.” What is the empirical basis for this? Is there a scientific literature showing that when post-breastfeeding prepubescent children are made ward of their fathers, rather than their mothers, they have developmental failures?”—Asab Karpuz
^No. It’s just the evidence from every law code throughout history, that whenever there is a divorce the mother is returned to her father with her children and those assets the father contributed to the marriage.” Traditionally men take charge of boys during a ritual of some sort (coming of age) where they leave the mother gradually or rapidly and join the world of men. Girls are not treated the same because there is endless demand for them, whether helping mother and siblings, or for sex and fertility, or for assistance in the operation of a household whether single or multi-generational. The evidence is somewhat the opposite in that single women are deleterious to the development of their children, mostly because they will not accept a male who has influence over her children, where as the opposite is true in that men quickly reform stable households. So (a) is the mother emotionally stable and not exposing her children to psychological chaos (b) is she sufficiently conscientious to run a household and govern children (c) is she financially stable in and possessed of enough income to run a household, and (d) is she stable enough to restore a two-parent family. Conversely is the man (a) not anti-social, abusive, addictive, or criminal (c) desirable enough and conscientious enough to attract a woman who can maintain a household, (c) capable of producing sufficient income to afford doing so. In other words, it simply more beneficial to hold a two parent household and men are more likely to rapidly construct one.
-
Why Do Children Go with The Mother Given the Data?
WHY DO CHILDREN GO WITH THE MOTHER GIVEN THE DATA?
—-“immature children are the responsibility of the mother in the event of a divorce.” What is the empirical basis for this? Is there a scientific literature showing that when post-breastfeeding prepubescent children are made ward of their fathers, rather than their mothers, they have developmental failures?”—Asab Karpuz
^No. It’s just the evidence from every law code throughout history, that whenever there is a divorce the mother is returned to her father with her children and those assets the father contributed to the marriage.” Traditionally men take charge of boys during a ritual of some sort (coming of age) where they leave the mother gradually or rapidly and join the world of men. Girls are not treated the same because there is endless demand for them, whether helping mother and siblings, or for sex and fertility, or for assistance in the operation of a household whether single or multi-generational. The evidence is somewhat the opposite in that single women are deleterious to the development of their children, mostly because they will not accept a male who has influence over her children, where as the opposite is true in that men quickly reform stable households. So (a) is the mother emotionally stable and not exposing her children to psychological chaos (b) is she sufficiently conscientious to run a household and govern children (c) is she financially stable in and possessed of enough income to run a household, and (d) is she stable enough to restore a two-parent family. Conversely is the man (a) not anti-social, abusive, addictive, or criminal (c) desirable enough and conscientious enough to attract a woman who can maintain a household, (c) capable of producing sufficient income to afford doing so. In other words, it simply more beneficial to hold a two parent household and men are more likely to rapidly construct one.