The Information You Receive on Public Policy is Censored. But Jury Democracy Obviates that Problem.
Perhaps the main advantage of Jury Democracy is that all sides on a given issue will get to present their arguments and evidence, regardless of whether the mainstream media or academia or most elected representatives or the tech platforms approve of those ideas and regardless of the power and money on the side wanting to present their arguments. That is essential to making informed decisions.
For the last 2+ years there was one issue that was by far the most important public policy issue of that time, the lockdown response to COVID, and the powers that be simply refused to allow one side to be heard or to disseminate facts that would be inconvenient to the pro-lockdown side of the argument. I would not have believed the level of censorship we have in our society if I had not experienced it myself. I am a Ph.D. biochemist and immunologist and I extensively researched the CDC data and scientific literature on COVID and the effects of the lockdowns and started a non-profit, COVID Sanity, to disseminate facts about the benefits and harms of the lockdowns and wrote a book, COVID Lockdown Insanity, with those facts to lay out the case that the lockdowns caused vastly, vastly more harm than benefit. It is not a remotely close call. We were censored every step of the way. We tried to place ads on Google, Facebook, and YouTube and with the StarTribune newspaper that merely stated the fact that the rate of moderate-to-severe depression in the U.S. went from 8.5% pre-lockdowns to 27.8% during the lockdowns. None of the above would accept an ad that merely stated that statistic! That statistic is from the Journal of the American Medical Association and a separate study from the Colorado School of Public Health. Very reputable sources.
Amazon will not allow me to advertise my book COVID Lockdown Insanity. You can advertise pornography or Hitler’s Mein Kampf on Amazon, but you cannot advertise a book that says the lockdowns were a mistake.
I calculated from other reputable scientific literature statistics that the Omicon strain of COVID was 36-fold less deadly than the original strains of COVID and about 20-times less deadly than the flu. In other words, about as deadly as the common cold. That again was based on very reputable scientific literature. I put out a press release with those statistics, citing the scientific literature. EIN Presswire, our distribution service, refused to distribute it!
There was a congressional hearing on whether ivermectin, a cheap generic drug, was effective against COVID. The hearing was broadcast on C-SPAN. YouTube pulled that video! YouTube censored a congressional hearing!!
It is not a democracy when one side on the most important public policy debate of our time is not allowed to present their arguments or evidence, even when that evidence is demonstrably true or is from the government itself or the most prestigious scientific journals. Censorship is not compatible with democracy, and one side on the lockdown debate was censored.
Jury Democracy will eliminate that problem. Even when the press and tech platforms refuse to allow one side to be heard, that side will get the chance to present their case to a jury. So the jury will be making an informed decision.
I will make a video on this but I will not risk putting it on YouTube because I’m sure they will remove it and potentially then block our channel from the platform entirely.