CONSTITUTIONAL RECALL OF

POLITICAL OVERSIMPLIFICATION

The policing of thought through information has become a thing in modern America.  The founders considered the problems with the government's role when considering how facts should be adjudicated in our courts, so as a solution they modeled a "three strike" supreme appellate system checked by juries at the smallest jurisdiction.  All of this disinformation-police talk and bureaucracy stands on its face as crazy.  Now that government technocrats have way overstepped this forbidden pandora's box, constitutional citizens must now figure out how to clarify the evidentiary details that allowed this to happen.  Prosecution of public officials is not so black and white, even if there was an automatic deterrence process for wrongful abuses already examined in trial, so that potential for abuse gives a lot of the harmful discretion we've seen a foundation in good faith.  Likewise, serious matters such as the policing of disinformation should be heavily restricted to the worst of such issues such as oversimplification from a position of great power, if at all anywhere.  Just imagine the abuses when extremists get their hands on an unclear power to police lies outside of the courts.  If this kind of authority was limited to oversimplification in big power, all tedious matters would be restricted to the topic of whether given information in question is relevant, and we would have enough clear teeth to hold the worst liars in power's feet to the fire.  Big-media censorship is part of the problem instead of a solution, so maybe we should be thinking more about all of the damage that results from the oversimplified, divisive narratives they are perpetuating to help win elections.  The state and its private arms' role in determining fact belongs in the courts, so their encroachments outside of them requires us to update our standards of proof and limit their potentials to things such as electoral campaigning, the practice and adjudication of law by lawyers and judges, and in big media but only when it breaches a constitutional right.

THE INCONTROVERTIBLE STANDARD OF PROOF

Have you ever made an important point in everyday conversation and then had your relevant point discredited?  Think about it: sometimes, real Americans on both sides find themselves arguing over the same point.   Millions of Americans on both sides agree that special interests should not be able to ship out jobs overseas and otherwise pillage our economy.  The reason partisan advocates are capable of arguing over how much they agree with each other is partly because the publishers on one side present the info they like, the other side's do the same, and neither likes to acknowledge each other's parts of the totality of circumstances or whenever they themselves are wrong.  Reality is clearly not a matter of all opinions being equally credible like postmodern tradition says, information simply does not work like that.  One side generally has more of the totality of circumstances than the other per topic, sometimes everybody can be wrong, often do so many deny critical info, and very rarely does "the other side" have nothing credible to say like politicians and news-anchor looney toons say.  One simply cannot make a credible conclusion if they do not take relevant information into account, it is like doing a math problem by omitting part of the problem.  Accusing the other side of having no relevant information is almost certainly far less credible and more suspicious than whatever circumstance in question.  The nature of conclusivity is why jury instructions for reasonable doubt and preponderance of evidence do not constitute complete standards of proof.  Through trial and error, juridical standards have been found to be a reliable way for a jury to make a verdict rather than a pure or accountable evidentiary standard.  There is a bottom standard for nonevidence bullshit, there are above-average, everyday proof standards we have been using for trial, and there are largely nonexistent high standards for extremely credible and incontrovertible evidence.  Incontrovertible evidence is rarely achievable and has been clear to juries in the past when the concept of the highest possible, "purely undeniable" standard of proof has been made clear to them.  However, let's say an agency keeps demanding thousands of dollars in undue burdens from everyday citizens who don't have so much money, but there is even already case law for this major premise, and a particular plaintiff has gathered ten primary sources of the agency changing their "legal" reasoning in this case.  This is not ten unclear exhibits, it is extremely credible evidence of government crime (18 USC 241-242) and pattern behavior.  If there were pretrial motions for clearly-defined, high standards of proof then affirmed in trial and process for unreasonable suspicions/doubts/expectations, the burdens of proving white collar crime would not be so constitutionally lopsided by technocrat professionals!

HOT-BUTTON POLITICAL ISSUE HYPERPARTISANSHIP

In the 1950s, a culture of policing thought by attempting to cancel things like rock music, anti-apartheid speech, free exercise of religion, anything they considered dissent, and even the right to bear arms began to spread out from the republican party.  This lead to an extremist "counterculture" reaction that thought doing drugs together in the streets would solve our problems.  Don't these dynamics sound familiar to those we already know are being created by today's democrat party?  Millions of Americans already have suspicions about why people on both sides can catch themselves arguing over the same point.  Professional oversimplified-narrative propaganda doesn't even try not to be sloppy.  Mainstream partisan media outlets are like vacuum chambers isolated from the outside world to their viewers.  When I get past the seriousness it makes me laugh: watching FOX tell viewers the opposite of what the clip they are about to show says and MSNBC convincing their viewers that every event is the first time such an event has ever happened, anywhere ever!  "Independent" partisan journalists with any real publishing power tend to do the same at a higher level of thought, with the addition of inflaming groupthink by pointing out the obvious problems with the mainstream.  Despite such sloppy oversimplifications that anyone with a little extra information can see through, they always seem to target their audiences precisely enough so they almost never have that extra info that the other side has.  Until a reasonably doubtless smoking gun or set of extremely credible compiled data exposes a legitimate conspiracy from folklore, the great volume of uncompiled, related, professional errors that professionals should genuinely understand better than the rest of us are only major probable causes indicating that powerful insiders are working together to divide us very precisely.