Criticizing the critic

  https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/stanford-failed-academic-freedom-test

Sharp separate locking of Covid patients in china futilely, has furnished materials to critics of the USA policies adopted earlier. Separating out the implied solutions upset me enough to not only look at early failings and advanced non-sense corrections but balance the criticism to not favor Professor Geelani type of evil professor about Kasmir and the slaughter of Hindu pandits. A better solution is to address shortcomings without having to allow true evil a safe haven. Such a solution is printed which can be adopted by the University and provide a graded look at the American constitution. No one needs to ever worry about the truth-deciding group and Star Wars type of evil empire rising.

A constitution is a written document interpreted by the courts. American supreme court has erred several times but has corrected itself in each case. Perhaps its interpretations now will be considered so by me, and a lot of time will pass between now and correction later but that is what real life is about. On matters of abortion/women-freedom and wish-death, I am a known traitor to conservative causes based on my interpretation of science. However, I consider my interpretation of science and calling myself a scientist conservatives label self-chosen and different from any truth-deciding community. The science label allows me to dismiss all objectionable past practices and laws but still accept cultural novelties and laws.

Clearly then, the Stanford professor and Geelani are both appealing to a past practice of full and constructed freedom of expression. What does science say? Nothing because the subject is new and has no people coverage yet - Geelani in 1990 and S.P. at the start of the pandemic. In fact, in both cases, the real truth will be determined later, This situation arises very often - sides-conflict happens in nearly all policy matters and clearly shutting up of the other side happens often. One way that is done is a money attack but abuse of tenure power and money/prestige loss if one way for side tries to win.

Conservative interpretation of democracy is open voting right to all citizens that can pass a level and have some wealth. Massive abuse opening makes all such ideas non-sense. A government is a citizen-owned business. Much better if the once issue of inheritable votes to all citizens. Population growth fuck any pro-population voters! But my proposal is stronger - votes are numbers proportional to taxes paid. No easy abuse and in fact I expect more citizens to pay honest taxes. With state permission, people can publicize honestly votes given for enormous benefits from advertisers. Only losers will be commies and true shirkers. The state could issue votes proportional to jobs created and given as dole.

My solution is so based. Whether or not the voting scheme is adopted, some policies (which are decided by lawmakers) have to be passed with taxpayer support to levels decided by the court.  Academic freedom censoring can only be done at the constitutional amendment level. I think the Stanford case will prohibit censoring and Geelani will fail.