we have the written laws, and the unwritten laws. the breaking of the law, and the breaking of a social norm. for the first, penalties range from a fine to death. for the second, penalties are shame, or shame and imprisonment in a mental institution.
the general purpose, is to enact modes of behavior that promote actions and reactions involving less harm to the individual or to the whole, and promote peace and well being for the whole first, and individuals second.
common law arose out of england, and is a structure that requires any law to function as precedent. in this way, law is for the common good, not just for the individual good; or most importantly, for the common good, not just the powerful individual good.
if the mayor of the town wishes to outlaw his wife from traveling alone, he must outlaw ALL wives from traveling alone. common law is a way of looking to the future, and determining how that law interacts with other laws, as well as what precedent is set for further legal measures. such as, if it is illegal for a wife to travel alone, then should it also be illegal for seniors to travel alone? the law itself is based on the question of WHY the law is necessary. the necessity must be held in COMMON, not just because the mayor has a wife he doesn’t want out of his sight.
the beauty of common law, is that it is built in degrees, in stages, rather than all at once. the justice is not based upon the need for behavior modification for the one, but by the need for all. the legal system itself is built one stone at a time, in a framework that supports not only punishment, but collaboration with the law. the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
now social norms are much more tricky. there might be dangers of walking alone, and so women only go into town when accompanied by husbands. it becomes so common, that it is then frowned upon socially to not have an escort.
norms also work with precedent, but are based on the powerful alone. and in this sense, norms established by the powerful can be infinitely more damaging to the whole. therefore we have “with great power comes great responsibility.”
and so to my point: if someone in great power uses (misuses) a social website to attack perceived enemies through mob justice, this establishes a norm for that particular behavior.
and because that norm unseats common law, and erodes justice itself by replacing it with mob justice, i propose the united states of america develope a legal basis for preventing mob justice via mass communications on social networks and other computer-driven means.
it will not be easy. but in light of recent events, giving the powerful far too much influence over the individual and their rights under common law, there is proof of a necessity for a regulation that at least establishes firmly the right and wrong regarding the use of internet communications to carry out vendettas.
it will also establish a means of compensation for those harmed, in reimbursement for need or perceived need to move, change addresses or phone numbers, etc.
i propose that NOT establishing this law is detrimental to freedoms of speech, creating a norm in which only the powerful are given the rights to address the actions of the powerful. not establishing bindings of common law to interactions on social networks, has left the populace vulnerable to real-world events not under their control, nor under the control of any just government.
to date, controls via shaming and establishing correct behaviors have given limited benefit. however, with the rise in power of those exhibiting bad behavioral norms upon the internet, such as with the actions of president elect donald trump on twitter, i propose that legal steps must be made by COMMON LAW to protect the common man.
we need to address the internet as a community, where the enforcement of behavioral norms is losing ground at an alarming rate. where individual websites are not establishing enough protections and controls for their members. social networks have established volatile communities right next to actual communities with a steep incident rate of actual harm to actual communities and individuals. i believe enough evidence persists for wider applications of common law to “social networking,” and that there is most certainly an obligation for common law to enter this “new realm” and keep the common peace.
norms are ineffective on the wealthy and powerful, giving them power for vendetta that contradicts the entire foundation and establishment of common law.
i can only do so much, in working to establish appropriate behavioral norms. we can only do so much, and are not sure how to proceed. i sincerely believe that it is time to establish common law specifically for internet communications. this is no longer fun and games, this is life and death for many. we must use common law, where the application of norms are failing.
i understand the ramifications, but the need is acute and necessity has been established to either apply law and justice, or destroy the internet communications framework entirely to protect the citizens of the united states of america.
i am the common.