Welcome!

Welcome to "Exposing Mother Haters" blog. We plan to expose the groups around the World Wide Web who for whatever reason, have decided that "MOTHERS" would be a great group to target. Having tried to do so on Facebook and being told that it was a violation of Community Standards (what about the Community Standards that should protect a class of people - all mothers around the world?). This was reported to me, and this person is now facing three days in what has been fondly called Facebook Jail. She cannot post, comment, or contact anyone unless that person has messaged her previously. And the reason for this imposed hiatus by Facebook? She shared a hate filled page on her own wall and page and the owner of that page reported her for some sort of violation of Community Standards. What standard she violated was never shared and she has tried contacting Facebook to no avail. So I decided to take this off of Facebook (since I was long ago banned) and into a sphere over which they have no control. Pick and choose my battles? Well, this is a battle because many sites are not as blatant as the offending site in the case of Facebook jail time. So I will expose them all here as I have the time. So keep watching here and learn who is safe and who is not. And it is all free game!


Rules/Laws regarding the posting of publicly posted comments AKA Screenshots under Fair Use Doctrine:

1. The purpose and character of the use: Reproduction for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research is not copyright infringement. This probably covers most blogs and personal websites, but there are other factors to consider.
2. The nature of the copyrighted work: The Supreme Court has said that this factor is often "not much help," but the nature of the original could become more important when dealing with digital works that may be reproduced not one time, but one million times, in a fraction of the time.
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: If the original is 10,000 pages, and the culprit reproduces one page, that is probably not infringement. But, if the original is one page, and the culprit still reproduces one page, he has probably infringed on the copyright.
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: This one gets fun. The Supreme Court has rejected an irrebuttable presumption that commercial reproduction eliminates the fair use defense, but reproduction for a commercial purpose may push the secondary use closer to infringement and farther away from fair use. This factor requires the court to consider the relevant market and the competitive atmosphere while simultaneously trying to increase the welfare of Americans, two often competing interests. For instance, although a corporation may limit many forms of unauthorized reproduction of its software, the FCC has stated that truthful, non-deceptive comparative advertising is both legal and important to a healthy marketplace.

They wanted a war, now they have one. Game on FUCKERS!