We have the freedom to provide foods and medicines to other people, but governments have imposed a lot of restrictions on that freedom during the past few centuries in order to ensure that we are provided with safe foods and medicines.

Furthermore, the government has created several agencies, such as the FDA and the USDA, to routinely inspect foods and medicines because we cannot assume that everybody will follow the rules. Some people deliberately violate the rules, and other people violate them inadvertently because of ignorance or mistakes.

Governments have imposed restrictions on our freedom of speech during the past few centuries, such as prohibiting slanderous remarks, and prohibiting businesses from lying about their products, but compared to the restrictions on foods and medicines, the restrictions on our freedom of speech are trivial.

Furthermore, there is no government agency that is analogous to the FDA or the USDA to routinely ensure that the information that people provide to us is beneficial and honest.

The lack of concern about the quality of the information is allowing individual citizens and organizations to abuse us, and it causes a lot of confusion. Some examples are:

•	Everybody is free to make nonsensical accusations against people that they dislike, such as accusing them of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, homophobia, and white privilege.
•	The Wikipedia, Facebook, the ADL, political parties, think tanks, and other organizations can promote lies and censor honest information and people.
•	The authors of school books can promote lies about the world wars, the 9/11 attack, the Holocaust, and other events.
•	Everybody is free to claim that he is a "Fact Checker" or "Myth Buster", even if he is actually suppressing the truth and promoting deception in order to cover up a crime.

All of us have picked up so much distorted, contradictory, dishonest, and inaccurate information, especially about human behavior, health, history, and culture, that our minds could be described as information trash dumps.

It was acceptable for prehistoric people to have the freedom to say anything they pleased, but modern humans must be held responsible for the information we provide to other people. Every person today, including children, can influence the entire world as a result of the Internet and other modern technology.

We need restrictions on our freedom of speech in order to prevent individuals and organizations from trying to manipulate and exploit us with deceptive information and nonsensical accusations. For example:

•

Organized Religions An organized religion is not inherently bad, just as a business, charity, nation, or other organization is not inherently bad. An organized religion is just a group of people. However, when people have the freedom to say anything they please, and when they are not held accountable for what they say, a person can use that freedom to claim to be a spokesman of the supreme being that created the universe, and he can deceive people into providing him with money, food, labor, or sexual services. He can also claim to be the only person with the correct beliefs about the supreme being, and that people who disagree with him are ignorant or evil. This allows him to create an arrogant, militant organization that encourages the hatred of people with different beliefs. He can use his organized religion as his personal military force to pressure other people into joining his organization. Today we must require people to provide supporting evidence for their information. Since none of the people who claim to be a spokesman for a god can provide evidence, the Courts Ministry can have them put on restrictions or evicted.

•

Claims of ignorance We must be intolerant of the claims by our leaders that they are ignorant about an issue. For example, when some journalists and government officials were asked about evidence that the World Trade Center buildings were demolished with explosives during the 9/11 attack, they claimed to be ignorant of such evidence. We must pass judgment on whether our leaders are truly as ignorant as they claim, or whether they are trying to manipulate us with false information. If we conclude that they are ignorant, then we should pass judgment on whether they should remain in an influential position or be fired. We cannot expect a person to know everything, but it is idiotic to allow leaders who are more ignorant than their members. Our leaders should help us understand the world, not the other way around.

An individual person today has the ability to influence the entire world through television, the Internet, and printed publications. Organizations have even more influence than citizens. As a result, modern humans must be concerned about what citizens and organizations are doing with their freedom of speech.

It is no longer sensible to follow the prehistoric custom of letting everybody say whatever they please. We must insist that people provide us with honest and accurate information.

Putting restrictions on freedom of speech is not enough because we cannot assume that people and organizations will follow the rules properly. We must assume that some people will deliberately give us distorted information in order to manipulate us, and that people will occasionally give us distorted information inadvertently because of mistakes in their research or analyses.

One purpose for the Database and Courts Ministries is to be analogous to the FDA and the USDA, except that instead of inspecting foods and medicines, they analyze school books, Wikipedia entries, news reports, and other information to ensure that we are being provided with honest, accurate, and beneficial information.

Allowing journalists, the ADL, the think tanks, and other citizens and organizations to provide us with information without ensuring that the information is beneficial is as idiotic and dangerous as allowing organizations to provide us with whatever foods and medicines they please.

We can allow people to have the freedom to make idiotic remarks when they are alone with their friends and family members, but the information we provide to the public must meet higher standards.

Therefore, all ministers and presidents are authorized to recommend intellectual trials to pass judgment on whether somebody's information is accurate and beneficial, and whether he is trying to manipulate or exploit us. The Courts Ministry conducts those trials, passes judgment on the value of the information, and decides what to do with the people who are deceptive.

For example, Miles Mathis has this website that has dozens of documents that expose lies and crimes, but how much of what he says is accurate? For example, in his document about the 9/11 attack, he claims that the airplanes that hit the World Trade Center towers were CGI, not real airplanes, and that the Mossad and Israel had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack.

His inability to notice the Israeli involvement in the 9/11 attack might be because of his genetic characteristics, which he described as:

In his page of links, he promotes Jews and Jewish propaganda, such as globalresearch and Jason Bermas.

He is just one of thousands of people who have produced documents and videos that claim to expose crimes, lies, and corruption, but there is no culture yet that has any concern about whether a person is telling us the truth, making honest mistakes, or trying to deceive us. This lack of concern about the quality of the information is more idiotic and dangerous than not caring about the safety of a medicine.

Instead of allowing Mathis to promote unverified information, the ministers should advocate an intellectual trial of his information, and the reasons why he is promoting false information.

The Courts Ministry would arrange for the intellectual trial, and if the judge determines that Mathis should be evicted, the Security Ministry will handle the eviction.

The Courts and Security Ministers will have to deal with a lot of angry citizens and government officials who don't like having their "personal" lives investigated and exposed, and who don't like being held accountable for their crimes. They need the attitude of a gardener, not a mother or a submissive, democratic official.

Therefore, those two ministers are restricted to men who have demonstrated an above-average ability to resist intimidation by angry people, and who have the emotional ability to arrest high-ranking government officials

Whether the intellectual trials are beneficial or detrimental depends upon the people in the Courts Ministry, which depends upon the Director of the Quality Division, which depends upon the voters.

An organization is useful only if it members are willing to do something useful, and only if they have the talent to do something useful.

The FDA and the USDA have reduced the abuse of the food and pharmaceutical businesses, but the officials in those agencies are not as honest or intelligent as they should be. An example is that they are still suppressing Stevia and monk fruit, as of July 2024, and recommending other alternatives to sugar.

Since the voters determine the leadership of the government, the voters indirectly determine whether the intellectual trials are honest and useful.

This constitution puts the government in control of everything about society, but giving a government that much authority is potentially dangerous. It requires the voters to select government officials who:

•	Are more honest than the current business executives, journalists, professors, charity officials, think tank officials, ADL officials, and religious leaders.
•	Are more intelligent than the majority of people so that they are not easily outsmarted.
•	Have higher moral standards that most people so that they can resist the bribes and blackmail traps of crime networks.
•	Have enough of an education and understanding of false flag operations, damage control, deception, and propaganda, to avoid being manipulated by dishonest people.

Rather than frighten ourselves with scenarios of potential abuse by corrupt government officials, we should put effort into ensuring that the only people who vote are those who have the talent to provide us with good leadership.

This requires treating voters in in a similar manner as we treat doctors and pilots. Specifically, we must create, and continuously improve, an educational program and testing procedure to determine who qualifies to be a voter. We must also to observe the performance of the voters to ensure that they are doing an excellent job, and we must routinely replace the worst performing voter so that someone else can test their talents.

However, voters have to deal with more emotional trauma than doctors and pilots because they have to pass judgment on which leaders should be fired. This requires they have an above average ability to resist their emotional craving to become submissive to their leaders. They must also be able to resist the leaders who try to get favorable treatment by trying to become their friend, or by giving them praise, and they must resist attempts to intimidate them.

Since men are better than women at dealing with these emotionally traumatic situations, voting is restricted to men.
More details about these issues are here.

An information trial does not resemble the criminal trials that are conducted in the USA and Europe. There is no jury or lawyers. Instead, a trial is similar to the analysis conducted by a group of engineers who are analyzing the wreckage of an airplane that crashed, or some school teachers who are analyzing the curriculum of one of their classes.

The Courts Ministry encourages part-time and temporary officials, so this allows people to get involved with the trials that they are interested in, or have some particular knowledge about. A person can get involved with a trial only once in his life if only one trial interests him. Nobody has to make any long-term commitments.

With modern technology, the people do not have to get together in the same room to conduct the trial. A trial can be conducted through videoconferencing, thereby allowing people to participate while at their job or home.

The Director of the Quality Division, and the Courts Minister are the only two people with the authority to initiate information trials, and everybody else has to request information trials.

If some other government official, or a citizen, believes that a person or organization is promoting inaccurate or deceptive information, they are encouraged to post a document in the Suggestions category to explain their concerns and to request for an information trial. If either the Quality Director or the Courts Minister agrees that the information should be investigated, they will arrange for an information trial.

For example, a citizen would be able to post a suggestion to investigate the man who created this video that suggests that some rock formations in the desert are unnatural. If the trial concludes that the information is indeed inaccurate or deceptive, the citizen will get credit for exposing it, which will improve his social credit score and help him if he wants certain types of jobs.

If the Courts Minister regards a case as simplistic, he can make the decision by himself without bothering with a trial. An example of a simplistic trial would be the accusations made by Madonna and Bette Miller (described here). Their accusations are so stupid that the Courts Minister should not waste his time, or the time of other people, to analyze her remarks and pass judgment on whether they are beneficial or idiotic. Instead, he should make a decision by himself about what to do about their idiotic accusations, and what to do about those women.

He would post his conclusions and his reasoning in the Explanations category so that everybody can pass judgment on whether he is making wise decisions and providing a useful analysis of the information.

The reason this Constitution creates the concept of "intellectual trials" is because passing judgment on the value of information often requires more than one person's opinion, and it often requires research and discussions. Therefore, someone needs the authority to allocate labor and resources for such an analysis.

Furthermore, we must pass judgment on why a person has produced invalid or deceptive information, and then pass judgment on what to do about his information, and what to do about that person. That analysis and judgment can also be so complex that it requires other people to get involved.

An even more important reason for having an information trial is to allow us to hold people accountable for their decisions about which information is considered to be beneficial.

In every existing culture, nobody is held accountable for the information they produce, or their censorship of other people or information. For example, no matter how much proof we have that YouTube and Wikipedia are censoring valuable information, nobody can do anything to stop them. We also cannot demand that they identify the individuals who are responsible for the censorship.

The Teentown Minister is required to give teenagers an education about these issues by giving them such exercises as:

1) What is the difference between: a) Giving businesses the freedom to create medical products that contain radium or highly addictive drugs. b) Giving the Wikipedia, journalists, and other organizations the freedom to create news reports that contains deception and lies about the Holocaust, the 9/11 attack, the Apollo moon landing, and other events. 2) What is the difference between: a) Giving businesses the freedom to make medical claims that don't have supporting evidence, such as the Hair Grower produced by the Seven Sutherland Sisters. b) Giving citizens, journalists, the ADL, SPLC, and other organizations, the freedom to make accusations that don't have any supporting evidence, such as the accusations of Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, and white privilege.

Our modern societies cannot give us the freedom to say whatever we please. We must have restrictions on our freedom of speech, and this requires putting some people in a position of authority to pass judgment on whether somebody is using his freedom of speech properly, or whether he is providing us with information that is destructive, inaccurate, or deceptive.

We need a government agency to supervise our freedom of speech, and we must be able to hold the officials accountable for what they do. The officials must be required to document their decisions and identify themselves so that we can pass judgment on whether they are providing us with intelligent leadership, or whether they are trying to manipulate us.

An information trial is three separate analyses:

1)	An analysis of the information. The accuracy and value of the information needs to be determined. This is a complicated decision because information cannot be divided into two groups; specifically, accurate or inaccurate. Instead, we must make a decision on where it belongs in the spectrum from one extreme to the other.
2)	An analysis of the people. If the information is determined to be beneficial, then the people who created and promoted it will get credit for it. Otherwise they will have a failure listed in their database entry, which will lower their social credit score, their chances of reproducing, and their chances of getting into influential positions. If the information is determined to be detrimental, the judge is required to determine whether the people did it deliberately to manipulate or deceive somebody.
3)	An analysis of what to do about the situation. If the information is determined to be detrimental, then the judge must decide what to do with the people by looking at their history. If the judge determines that the person made an honest mistake, and if he has a history of being beneficial, then the judge might just tell him to get an education about the issue. If a person has a history of making mistakes, then the judge might have the database computers tag his documents as "low priority" so that they are less likely to be noticed. If he has an extensive history of making mistakes, then the judge can prohibit him from posting in the Suggestions category. If the judge determines that a person deliberately provided deceptive information, then he can decide whether the person should be put on restrictions or evicted.

Information trials have been going on for as long as humans have existed. However, people have had the freedom to conduct them secretly and anonymously, and nobody has been held accountable for them. For some examples of information trials that are regularly occurring:

•	The editors of scientific journals conduct information trials when a scientist submits an article for publication. The editors pass judgment on whether the information is accurate, valuable, and worthy of distributing to the public. However, they are allowed to conduct those trials secretly and anonymously, which allows them to deceive and exploit us. For example, they can secretly pass information about somebody's research to their friends so that their friends can plagiarize the information and publish it first, and they can delay the publishing of a document in order to hurt a particular scientist, or to help their friends publish first.
•	The people who set standards for USB connectors, bolts, and other items are conducting information trials when they make those determinations, but they do so secretly and anonymously, so nobody can hold them accountable for idiotic decisions, or decisions that are intended to help a particular business.
•	The businesses that provide us with information, such as the news agencies, Wikipedia, Google, and YouTube are conducting information trials to determine which information should be presented to the public as "news", and which information should be ignored, but they are allowed to make those decisions secretly and anonymously, which allows them to manipulate us.
•	The FDA conducts information trials when it analyzes the claims of medicines and foods, but they have the freedom to make those decisions secretly and anonymously, which allows them to deceive and manipulate us, such as by suppressing Stevia and promoting aspartame, sucralose, and sugar.
•	Every citizen conducts an information trial when we pass judgment on which information to believe. For example, we conduct an information trial when we are given information about nutrition, veganism, religion, raising children, President Biden's mental condition, a potential spouse, and our neighbors. All of us routinely pass judgment on the value of information, but we do so secretly inside our own mind. Nobody can see what we are doing, and we have no pressure to do research into the issue, or to ensure that we are making intelligent decisions about the information.
•	Insurance companies conduct an information trial when somebody files a claim for insurance, and they are allowed to make decisions secretly and anonymously, which allows them to make decisions that are for the benefit of their business rather than for the benefit of society.

People have been analyzing information and passing judgment on its value all throughout history. This Constitution requires those trials to become a formal activity of the Courts Ministry so that we can observe the process and hold people responsible accountable for their decisions.

The formal information trials will reduce the chances that government officials and organizations can get away with deceiving and manipulating us with false, selfish, mistaken, and deceptive information.

Example: The 9/11 Commission

The US government arranged for a group of people to investigate the 9/11 attack, but they were allowed to conduct the investigation in secrecy, and nobody had the authority to demand that they answer questions or clarify information.

In order to improve upon this situation, this constitution requires everybody involved with an information trial to identify themselves and be held accountable for their analysis, contributions, or decisions.

Furthermore, and more important, citizens and government officials are permitted to post complaints in the Suggestions category, and the people involved with the trial must respond. Government officials are not permitted to ignore complaints in the Suggestions category, and they are not allowed to give deceptive responses, either, such as those given by the Santa Barbara city officials when people complain about the airport noise.

For example, millions of Americans believe that our government lied about their investigation of 9/11, the 6 January 2021 protest, the Katrina flooding, and the assassination attempt of Donald Trump, but the US Constitution allows the government to ignore complaints, and give false and vague answers to questions. We cannot expect a government to be beneficial when the officials have the freedom to ignore complaints about them.

The Courts Ministry arranges information trials, but it is unrealistic to expect a government agency to do a good job of supervising itself. Therefore:

	1)	The Security Ministry has the authority and responsibility of ensuring the information trials are honest and beneficial. If they believe one or more people involved with the trial is dishonest or incompetent, they have the authority to post a document in the Requests category to explain the problem and demand the Presidents and Directors get involved and pass judgment on the people involved with it. This will bring the conflict to the attention of everybody, thereby encouraging other government officials and citizens to get involved and pass judgment on what is going on.
	2)	The Behavior Ministry is responsible for setting standards for behavior, and ensuring people meet the standards, so they also have the authority to demand the Presidents and Directors investigate the people in an information trial.

The US legal system has no concern for whether a trial is beneficial to society. This lack of concern for the value of a trial allows dishonest and incompetent judges and lawyers to continuously conduct trials that have no benefit to society, or which are destructive. For example:

•	In 1994, the US court awarded Stella Liebeck a large amount of money after she spilled some hot coffee in her lap while trying to drink it while sitting in her automobile. The US legal system does not require or encourage an analysis of the judgment afterwards to determine whether society benefits by giving people lots of money for accidents and mistakes. The lack of concern about the value of providing people with lots of money for "suffering" from something, is encouraging people to look for ways they can make money from some unpleasant incident in their life, such as a mistake made by a doctor, or an automobile accident. None of those lawsuits improve America, but the US legal system doesn't care whether a trial has a benefit to society.
•	Criminal trials are conducted regularly in the USA to determine whether a defendant has committed a crime, and if so, how he should be punished, but there is never an analysis afterwards to determine whether the trial or punishment has done something to improve society, such as reduce crime.
•	About 140 million cases are filed each year in the USA, which is a tremendous burden on society. However, there is never an analysis to determine whether we benefit from this legal system, or whether we are wasting labor and resources by encouraging worthless court cases. This lack of concern also allows businesses and citizens to file lawsuits simply to hurt their competitors or the people that they dislike, and Jewish organizations can threaten lawsuits in order to intimidate and suppress the people who expose their crimes.

A legal system must make decisions that are beneficial to society. This requires analyzing a trial months or years later to determine how it has affected society, and to use that analysis to improve the legal system.

This is not a new concept. Engineers have been following this concept for centuries. Specifically, after they create a product, they observe what happens when they and other people use it. That information allows them to improve the product.

However, no culture has that attitude in regards to social technology. Government officials are allowed to create laws, conduct trials, and create agencies without anybody analyzing the results of their work and passing judgment on whether it has been beneficial, wasteful, or destructive. There is no culture that believes that culture can and should be improved.

This Constitution requires the ministers to behave like scientists and engineers. Specifically, the laws, trials, agencies, and other things that the government officials do must be analyzed occasionally to determine whether their policies have been beneficial, worthless, or destructive.

This constitution makes government officials responsible for everything they do. The Courts Ministry is held accountable for their trials. For example, if one of the officials advocates an information trial that is later considered to be worthless or detrimental, he will have a "failure" listed in his database entry. The officials with the most failures will be the first to be replaced.

Although the fear of failure might cause some officials to avoid authorizing an information trial, doing nothing make them worthless. Furthermore, if an official rejects a suggestion for an information trial that is later considered to be a useful trial, then the official who rejected it would have a "failure" added to his database entry.

The officials who conduct information trials that are determined to be beneficial will have that listed as a "success", and they will be the officials most likely to be promoted and keep their jobs.

The people who chose to get involved with a information trial are analogous to scientists who are analyzing a new aluminum alloy to determine its value. They are not analogous to the lawyers of a US trial, who either defend or attack a particular person.

If a doctor, scientist, farmer, or plumber agrees to get involved with an information trial because he believes he has some valuable information about the issue that is on trial, he is responsible for what he says. Therefore, to avoid having his credibility tarnished, he should be careful about claiming something to be a "fact".

His purpose in the trial is to help the other people understand the issue, not to defend or attack anybody, or try to convince people of anything. They should be passive and unbiased, just like a technician who is investigating why a refrigerator is broken.

Another way to describe the information trial is that the people involved should have the attitude that they are analogous to blind men who are feeling an elephant, and that each of them is providing whatever he knows, but not insisting that he has "The Truth", or that other people are incorrect.

The people who claim to have "facts" that turn out to be inaccurate will have that listed in their database entry as a failure, and the people who provide beneficial information will have that listed as a success. The people with the most failures will be the least likely to be invited to participate in a future information trial.

The Database and Courts Ministries, and the Director of the Quality Division, can authorize information trials, but all of the other citizens and government officials have to post a document to explain why they want an information trial.

The citizens post their documents in the Suggestions category, and the ministers post their documents in the Requests category, which gives it higher priority since it is assumed that the ministers have more intelligent requests than the ordinary citizens. The citizens and officials who post suggestions that turn out to be valuable will have that listed as a credit in the database, otherwise they will have it listed as a failure.

Example: Is red meat dangerous?

A citizen would be allowed to post a document to advocate an information trial for the accusation that "red meat" is unhealthy for us. The document would not have to be lengthy. Rather, it would have to provide intelligent reasons to justify the technical talent and labor that would be needed for the trial. It could be as simple as this:

Many people are afraid to eat red meat because of the claim that it is unhealthy, and this creates a nuisance for the people who provide meals to the public, such as airlines, restaurants, schools, and weddings. However, nobody has identified the chemical in red meat that is unhealthy, so how can we be certain that red meat is unhealthy? And how can we be certain that other foods do not also have that harmful chemical? Until that chemical is identified, the idea that red meat is unhealthy should be regarded as a wild speculation, and the public should be told to stop being afraid of it. The chemical that is causing health problems might be dangerous only in excessive quantities. For example, excessive amounts of salt and vitamin D will cause health problems, but that doesn't prove that salt and vitamin D are unhealthy.

If the Courts Minister believes that society would benefit by investigating the information about red meat, then he would select a person to be a judge for the trial, and they would then select people to investigate the issue.

If the judge concludes that the citizen was correct that the claim should be regarded as wild speculation, then the citizen will get credit for improving the quality of our information. That will improve his social credit score, and help him get a leadership position.

The primary purpose of the intellectual trials is to prevent citizens and organizations from ruining our culture with idiotic and deceptive information, but it can also be used to ensure that scientists are controlling their arrogance.

For example, a citizen could complain that physicists are referring to "dark energy" as if it is a fact when they have no evidence to support it. An information trial about the issue would conclude that the documents that describe dark energy must be edited to point out that the lack of evidence requires it be referred to as a "wild speculation" rather than as a theory.

Likewise, a citizen or minister could complain that the scientists are claiming that dinosaurs went extinct because of an asteroid when they don't have any proof of that, and that it should be considered as one of many possible explanations. An information trial would conclude that the documents that describe the dinosaurs must be edited to point out that only the large dinosaurs are extinct, and an asteroid is just one of the speculations about why.

The purpose of having these information trials and editing the scientific information is to counteract the emotional craving of humans to follow one another and become submissive to authorities. Specifically, when a scientist with high status is allowed to describe his theory as a fact, it puts other scientists under emotional pressure to follow him, but that is detrimental to scientific research.

Scientists must be able to look critically at the established theories and the "brilliant" scientists. The intellectual trials can improve this situation by ensuring that the established theories are regarded as imperfect and incomplete.

The trials can also help the scientists to dampen their arrogance and refrain from assuming that they have solved some complex issue about the universe when in reality none of us ever solves anything completely. There is always more to learn about every issue that we think we are knowledgeable about.

Most cultures believe that a jury that consist of random people will provide the most honest and fair trial, but this constitution regards that concept to be as false because the majority of people will always make ordinary or below-average decisions, not intelligent decisions.

For example, when Reesa Trexler was raped and murdered with a knife, many citizens assumed that her younger sister, Jodie, who was 13 years old, was responsible for the murder because she did not display the sadness at the funeral that they expected her to display. Jodie was treated as a murderer from then on, making her life miserable.

The people in her town made the decision to regard her as a murderer because Jodie behaved differently than other people, and we have a fear of everything that is different. They did not use their intellect to analyze the issue and realize that even if Jodie was responsible for the murder, they were not solving the crime because a man had raped Reesa. They were so frightened by Jodie's behavior that they did not care who the rapist was, or how and when Jodie killed her larger and stronger sister with a knife.

Their idiotic assumption that Jodie murdered her sister is typical of ordinary people. Most people have been making ordinary or stupid decisions all throughout history. This is partly because most people are of ordinary or below-average intelligence, but it is also partly because we have a natural resistance to learning and thinking. Schools put pressure on children to do some learning and thinking, but no culture puts pressure on adults to do any learning or thinking. Adults are free to react to problems in an emotional manner, like a stupid animal.

Some of the people who were accused of being witches seem to have been in a similar situation as Jodie. Specifically, their behavior, clothing, or lifestyle was different from that of the majority of people, and that caused the majority to be frightened of them.

Animals have a fear of everything that is unusual, and the typical person does not have much self-control over that emotion, or knowledge about it. Most people are so frightened of things that they are unaccustomed to that they have trouble trying different foods, recreational activities, and clothing styles.

Jodie was tormented by the public from 1984 until 2018, when she asked if she could appear on the Dr. Phil television show in order to explain to people that she did not murder her sister. Her appearance inspired the police to do a DNA analysis of the semen that they had collected in 1984, and they discovered it was from an employee of a business that was close to their home.

This is another example of how DNA is useful for solving crimes. If we had a database with everybody's DNA, we would protect innocent people, not hurt them, but not many citizens, policemen, government officials, and college graduates can understand that. It is foolish to let the public determine our policy for DNA databases.

It is foolish to expect an intelligent analysis of a crime from ordinary people.

Many people are concerned about innocent people being falsely convicted of crimes, but they are allowing innocent people to be tormented and convicted by treating DNA as personal and private data.

History has proven that the majority of people cannot give us intelligent guidance about anything, even if they have a college diploma and a lot of money. Most people don't have enough intelligence or control over their emotions to provide us with sensible analyses.

Therefore, random people are prohibited from participating in trials. The only people who are permitted to participate in a trial are those who have demonstrated an above-average ability to control their emotions, and who have provided some intelligent analyses in the past.

This creates the unsolvable dilemma of determining who is capable of providing "intelligent" analyses. As mentioned in other documents, such as here, the winners of the battle for the world will decide.

Most people in the world today seem to believe that they should have a lot of freedom to do and say as they please because they are ordinary people of no importance. However, everybody has an important influence on other people. Everybody is a "leader" to somebody, at least occasionally. For example, parents are leaders of their children while their children are young.

The difference between us is that we have different amounts of influence. For example, a person who appears on television, or who posts videos or documents on the Internet, has more influence than the people who never do such things.

If we could measure the influence that each person has on other people, and the influence he has on future generations, we would create the typical bell graph in which most people have an average amount of influence. That graph would show us that everybody has some influence.

Even a person who is blind and deaf has an influence on other people. Some of them have even become famous as entertainers. Homeless people also have an influence on the world.

Everybody is especially influential with children since children have a natural tendency to mimic people. The people who don't realize this can inadvertently become bad influences on children. For example:

•	When we giggle at children's mistakes, we encourage the children to make more mistakes.
•	When we make jokes about "camel toes" and farts, we encourage that behavior with children.
•	When we put a lot of emphasis on collecting trophies, jewelry, or status symbols, we encourage that behavior with children.

Everybody should be more concerned about how they affect other people, especially how they affect children. For example, women have such a strong attraction to babies and children that they are titillated by behavior that many men would describe as annoying or obnoxious.

During prehistoric times, it was acceptable for women to giggle at the obnoxious behavior of children. Today, however, our technology allows women to encourage obnoxious behavior from children, such as by posting videos of smash cakes, and videos of children behaving in silly manners.

For example, this video, which is described as "hilarious", is likely to encourage other women to encourage their children to behave in a similar "hilarious" manner, and it is likely to encourage children to behave in a hilarious manner so that they can become the center of attention.

Furthermore, YouTube provides money to people who post popular videos, so YouTube encourages people to encourage their children to behave in "hilarious" manners. This rewards childish behavior.

In this modern era, women should giggle at the "hilarious" behavior of children in a quiet, subdued manner. Adults should encourage children to behave in an intelligent and responsible manner, not encourage them to become clowns.

Most people want to censor the videos that have information about sex, childbirth, and digestion, but children need that information. By comparison, people pass around links to the "hilarious" videos of children who behave like clowns, but that encourages idiotic behavior from children, which is detrimental.

By following our emotional cravings and fears, we keep children ignorant about issues they need to understand, and we encourage them to behave in childish manners.

When a person posts a video or document on the Internet, his is providing the public and the future generations with information. No society cares whether we are being provided with information that is beneficial, or whether it is encouraging detrimental, obnoxious, or wasteful behavior, but the Courts Ministry is responsible for passing judgment on the value of all information, including the videos and documents that are posted by citizens.

Nobody has the right or the freedom to provide whatever information they please. Everybody is required to consider how they affect other people's lives. We are no longer nomadic savages who can do what we please. We must be concerned about how we influence other people with our information.

The videos of children acting "hilarious" is a type of pornography, and it could be described as "child pornography".

If somebody could find evidence that child pornography is beneficial, then we should encourage it, but there is more evidence that pornography is troublesome because it encourages idiotic and wasteful attitudes and behavior. This constitution advocates reducing pornography and encouraging the ministers to experiment with social and recreational activities that are more beneficial and satisfying.

Although everybody is influential, the people who post documents and videos on the Internet to tell us what to do or believe, or who give us lectures or insults, are more influential than the people who are more passive. An example are the people who accuse us of being anti-Semites, racists, or sexists.

This constitution refers to those type of people as bully leaders. They are appointing themselves to the position of "world leader", and they try to control us through intimidation, anger, hatred, or by fooling us into believing that they are knowledgeable authorities that we should obey.

Some of them try to make themselves seem important by boasting about their college diplomas, the famous people that they know, or their job titles. People who do that are trying to intimidate us, not educate us. They are trying to make us feel as if we are below them in the hierarchy.

A person who tries to control other people is appointing himself to the position of World Leader, and this constitution requires he meet the same high standards as all other leaders. It makes no difference whether he intended to become a world leader, or whether he is behaving in that manner simply because he cannot control his arrogance.

The Database Ministry of the Quality Division is authorized to investigate the information that people put on the Internet, and pass judgment on its value. If they determine that a person has some mistaken information, they can demand that the author fix the mistakes, and they have the authority to fix the mistakes if the author is dead or doesn't want to bother.

If the Database Ministry is not sure whether a person is making mistakes or deliberately trying to deceive people, they can authorize an intellectual trial, and the Courts Ministry will conduct it.

Example #1: Christopher Key's medical advice

Assume that Christopher Key is a citizen in Kastron, and that he was advising the public to drink (or inject ) some of their pee every day in order to remain in good health. Assume that another citizen, Ralph, was suspicious of Christopher's advice, so he posted a suggestion to have an information trial about Christopher's health advice.

If one of the officials in the Courts or Database Ministries agrees with Ralph that Christopher's information should be investigated, the Courts Ministry will conduct an trial to determine the accuracy and benefit of his information.

A judge would arrange for a group of scientists, doctors, or whoever he believed would be knowledgeable about the issue, to analyze and pass judgment on the value of Christopher's information. That court would be an informal group of people, and they would not necessarily get together in the same room to conduct the trial.

If any of them had questions about Christopher's information, the judge has the authority to require Christopher to answer the questions. The questions and answers can be conducted by videoconferencing.

This Constitution does not support anything similar to the Fifth Amendment, so the people on trial must answer questions. They cannot remain silent or keep secrets. Refusing to answer questions is considered a sign of guilt, and since we cannot know what the person is hiding, he must be considered to be unacceptable for a modern society, and evicted. There is no tolerance for people who demand secrecy because there is no evidence that secrecy protects innocent people. Rather, the evidence shows that secrecy is useful only for criminals.

That type of information trial would not resemble the trials in the USA, in which a group of lawyers compete to manipulate a jury that must remain silent, and in which the defendant has the option of remaining silent. Rather, it would resemble a group of scientists, engineers, or technicians who are participating in an analysis of a problem.

The trial would conclude with one of the following decisions on the value of the information that Christopher is providing:

1)	Unknown If the court decides that Christopher is making remarks that cannot be proven or disproven because we do not yet know enough about those particular health issues, then he would have to edit his documents to eliminate the arrogance and emphasize that he is expressing an opinion that has no supporting evidence. The court might also recommend a research program to investigate the issue, if they consider it important enough to learn more about it.
2)	False because of mental problems If the court decides that Christopher's information is false, and that it is due to and inferior mind rather than ignorance or mistakes, then he will have a failure listed in the database entry. There is no dividing line between a person who makes false accusations because of mental problems and a person who is making mistakes, but a judge has to make that decision. When a person has had a lot of failures, the judge can do something to stop him from wasting people's time. One option that the judge has is to request the software that manages the documents in the Suggestions category to automatically tag the person's documents as low-priority so that they don't get much attention. If a person has a tremendous number of serious failures, the judge can prohibit him from posting in the Suggestions category.
3)	Beneficial If the court decides that Christopher's information is more accurate than the existing information, then he would get credit for improving our knowledge.
4)	Deceptive If the court concludes that Christopher is deliberately creating false information to deceive people, he would be considered a criminal. The judge would then have to decide whether he is disruptive enough to be put on restrictions or evicted.
5)	Mistakes If the court decides that Christopher's information has honest mistakes, then Christopher would have to correct them or delete the document. We cannot expect people to be perfect, so a person's reputation should not suffer much simply because he made some mistakes, but the fewer mistakes a person makes, the better it will be for his reputation.

The court must also take a look at the other information Christopher has promoted during his life, and pass judgment on whether Christopher tends to promote worthless or detrimental concepts, and if so, whether his documents should be tagged as low-priority, or whether he should be prohibited from posting on the government and social sites.

The information trials cannot have any secrecy, so everybody is able to pass judgment on whether the judge made the most sensible decision.

Example #2: Bette Midler's accusation

Bette Midler boasts that she is a "living legend", so she should behave better than an ordinary person. However, in May 2023 she made this accusation about American culture:

She pinned that tweet to make it seem important, and to increase the number of people who notice it. Then in July 2023, she posted this accusation:

If she had done this as a citizen of Kastron, then the citizens and government officials would be able to post a suggestion to have an intellectual trial for her accusations. The trial would require her to provide supporting evidence for her accusations, but she would not be able to provide any, so she would be considered guilty of making false accusations.

The trial would then move to the next phase of passing judgment on why she made the false accusations, and what should be done about her. The judge might decide that she made the remark because of mental disorders, in which case he could prohibit her from posting messages on the government sites, and restrict her to the section of the Internet for mentally defective people. That would reduce the chances that she influences other people with her idiotic remarks.

That would be better than censoring her because she could continue to post messages, but it would have the effect of pushing her out of the room that we are in so that she doesn't bother us.

The judge might also conclude that she made the accusation because she is working with a Jewish crime network to manipulate our culture, in which case she would be regarded as a dangerous criminal, and she would be evicted or executed.

Example #3: Matt Corridoni's accusations

Matt Corridoni posted a photo that he described as:

Kennedy claimed that the animal was a goat. If a citizen or government official believed that Corridoni had posted that image in an attempt to stimulate anger towards Kennedy, he could post a document in the Suggestions category to explain his concern.

If the Courts Ministry agrees that the information may be a deliberate attempt to manipulate people into hating Kennedy, then they would authorize an information trial to determine what the photo is, and why Corridoni posted it.

If the judge concludes that Corridoni knew that the animal was a goat, but referred to it is a dog in order to instigate hatred, then he would be considered as a criminal, and he must be evicted or euthanized for trying to deceive people into hating somebody.

Some journalists considered Corridoni's remark as "news", and they gave it publicity, such as this Newsweek journalist. If the judge determines that a journalist gave publicity to the remark because he wanted to instigate hatred of Kennedy, then he would also be considered as a criminal.

In the USA, a trial is restricted to determining whether a defendant has committed a particular crime. However, an information trial doesn't have limitations. Therefore, an investigation of Corridoni could expand to an investigation of the journalists who promote his remark.

A person who creates or promotes deceptive information in order to instigate hatred is considered to be more detrimental than a person who puts poison into a food product. Therefore, if Corridoni or the journalists were determined to be passing around that information to instigate hatred, they would have to be evicted or euthanized.

It is so easy for us to complain that young children can complain as soon as they learn a few words. This creates the impression that complaining is a simple process that doesn't require any education or practice.

Making a complaint is easy, but making a useful complaint requires us to analyze an issue, and then convert that complaint into words. That is the same process that a scientist goes through when he analyzes a rock or insect, and then writes a document about what he discovered.

Although everybody can easily do analyses and produce documents, our different intellectual abilities allow some people to produce more useful analyses, and some people can produce documents that are easier for us to understand. Furthermore, some people have better self-control, and that allows them to do a better job of preventing their emotions from distorting their analysis.

The technicians who provide support for products are routinely encountering people who make complaints that are so vague that the technician feels as if he is an adult who is playing the game of Twenty Questions.

We would benefit by improving the value and clarity of our complaints, and we can do that by practicing the process of analyzing and complaining. Therefore, the Teentown Ministry is required to give teenagers practice with complaining to help them make more intelligent and understandable complaints.

The Schools and Teentown Ministries are  also required to teach children to impress people with intelligent concepts rather than with a large vocabulary, and to convey their thoughts as clearly as possible.

Everybody is accountable for their complaints and suggestions. The people who post the most valuable and easily understood complaints and suggestions will get credit for that, and the people who post idiotic complaints, or complaints that are difficult to understand, will be regarded as having lower quality minds.

For example, if a person were to post a document that essentially says nothing more than: "I don't like the new style of cell phone", that type of remark doesn't tell the engineers anything of value. It is the opposite of somebody saying: "I love the new cell phone!" That doesn't tell the engineers anything of value, either. People who post remarks like that will be considered to be idiots who are wasting our time.

The Suggestions category is for people who have put some effort into analyzing some aspect of society, and who have the ability to say something intelligent about it. The people who post idiotic remarks will ruin their social credit score, and risk having their documents suppressed by having them automatically tagged as low-priority. The people who post a lot of idiotic documents risk losing their privilege to post in the Suggestions category.

Since a democracy gives people what they want, and since we do not want to be responsible for what we say, none of the democracies hold ordinary people accountable for what they say. However, the members of a business or military do not have the freedom to say anything they please.

For example, if Christopher Key was working for a business, military, orchestra, or sports team, and if he was giving lectures to the other members to drink their pee, almost everybody in a management position would have the sense to tell him to stop it, and if he refused, he would risk being fired. The management passes judgment on the effect that an employee has on the team.

A democracy and a free enterprise system treats us as if we are kings and queens. This allows us to be irresponsible, selfish, sloppy, and irrational. We are also free to blame our problems on other people or mysterious concepts, such as racism, bad parenting, and lack of opportunities. And we are free to make unsupported accusations, such as sexism, anti-Semitism, racism, and Holocaust denial.

This constitution changes the situation by requiring the Behavior Ministry to set standards of behavior, and the Courts Ministry to enforce those standards. Everybody is required to be a productive team member. Nobody is treated as a King or Queen.

The organizations that survive competitive battles are those that require their members to work together as a team. The successful organizations do not allow their members to to encourage one another to get involved with idiotic, wasteful, destructive, or dangerous activities.

Furthermore, they do not tolerate members who ruin morale or instigate fights. For example, if Aruna Khilanani was a member of a business, military, orchestra, or sports team, and if she was giving speeches to the other members about her fantasies of "unloading a revolver" into the heads of the white members, she would risk being fired for being disruptive. The management might even contact the police to let them know that she is a potential danger to society.

Likewise, if Abe Foxman was a member of a business or military, and if he was advocating that some members be fired for anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, or hate speech, he would risk being fired for disrupting the team with senseless accusations.

The Behavior Ministry is required to set the same high standards for citizens as the employees of a business. The citizens must be as responsible and considerate during their leisure time as they are when they are working, and they are held accountable for what they say and do.

There will be lots of chores in the city that nobody wants to do, but this Constitution forbids having a peasant class to do those chores. Therefore, the chores will have to be divided up among the people. This brings up the dilemma of how we divide the chores equally.

One method is to divide up the chores regardless of the person's behavior. Another method is give the people who are badly behaved more chores in order to compensate for the irritation they cause the rest of us.

Giving the badly behaved people more chores would not be a punishment, or as a way of curing their bad behavior, but as a way of compensating for their bad behavior. This is an example of the complexity of the issue of "fairness". For example:

	a)	When the chores are divided up regardless of the person's behavior, everybody is irritated to the same extent by the chores they do, but the nicely behaved people have the additional irritation caused by the badly behaved people. That means that the higher-quality people suffer more irritations during their life.
	b)	When the badly behaved people do more chores, the higher-quality people continue to suffer the same amount of irritations from the low-quality people, but they suffer less of an irritation from the chores because they have fewer chores to do. The lower quality people suffer from their additional chores. If we could measure the amount or hours of irritation that everybody suffers from during their life, we would find that this causes everybody to suffer a more equal amount.

Ideally, everybody in a society would be well behaved, and nobody would be irritated by badly behaved people. Since we cannot prevent badly behaved people from irritating us, we can compensate for that irritation by making them do more of the chores in order to reduce other irritations.

Furthermore, having the badly behaved people spend some of their leisure time on chores will result in them having less leisure time to be an irritation to us.

We must stop feeling sorry for and pandering to the badly behaved people, and put our efforts into making life more pleasant for the higher-quality people.

If we allow a government to set high standards of behavior, will we suffer from stress as a result of worrying about whether we are behaving properly? If we allow the government to evict people who are destructive, will we suffer from the fear of being evicted? If we let the government control our culture, will we feel as if we are slaves with extreme restrictions on our freedom? The answer all of those type of questions is yes and no:


This concept could be summarized as: Some people will suffer from what other people enjoy.

This concept applies to everything in life. For example, whether a job is stressful depends upon the person. Likewise, whether we enjoy a recreational activity, food, clothing style, painting, sculpture, or song depends upon our particular mental and/or physical characteristics, and the information in our mind.

We cannot design a culture that appeals to everybody. The only solution to this problem is to restrict a city to the people who enjoy its culture. We can allow other cities to have different culture to appease other people, but we cannot create enough cities to appease everybody. Therefore, we must control reproduction to prevent people from becoming so different from the rest of us that they cannot find a culture that they enjoy.

As described in the diversity and other documents, if we do not control reproduction, the genetic differences between people will increase, resulting in a wider difference between what we like and dislike. It will eventually get to the point where everybody wants different foods, music, architecture, and sexual activities.

The vegans will eventually breed themselves into a creature that lose their ability to digest meat. The people who enjoy eating poop will eventually evolve into a creature that enjoys poop almost as much as a maggot. The religious fanatics will eventually breed themselves into a creature that has no curiosity or ability to think.

There is no right or wrong behavior for humans or other animals. However, the people who do not enjoy their culture will be misfits, and they are likely to suffer from loneliness, even if their qualities are actually superior to those of the majority of people.

We cannot prevent misfits, but we can reduce the problem by deciding what we want the human race to become, and restricting reproduction to reduce the genetic variations between us so that we remain compatible.

However, no matter what we do, there will always be a minority of the population that has trouble fitting in with the others. There will always be some misfits in every generation, and they will suffer no matter what we do. We cannot improve the situation by feeling sorry for them. We must accept the fact that life is cruel. A living creature is just a haphazard jumble of characteristics, and this will always result in some misfits.

Businesses deal with misfits by firing them, which is essentially dumping trash into somebody else's home. That does not solve the problem. Actually, it can make the situation worse because it can cause the misfit to become so angry that he kills one or more of the employees of the business.

Many parents deal with misfit children by trying to improve their behavior through punishments, lectures, rewards, religion, or military schools, but that can result in the misfit children reacting with sadness, anger, apathy, rebellion, violence, or running away from home.

It is important to realize that a misfit is not always an undesirable person. Misfits are necessary for evolution to occur. Some misfits have also provided the human race with a lot of information about the world because they had certain mental and physical characteristics that allowed them to do what other people could not do, such as get into a wooden boat and explore an unknown ocean.

Our ancestors who discovered that certain items were edible and others were poisonous were likely to be the misfits who had an abnormally low fear of the unknown, or less of a craving to follow the established culture, thereby giving them the courage to try something different. Many of them suffered or died as a result, but they provided knowledge to the other people who were afraid to eat it.

Most misfits will be inferior simply because random changes to genetics will usually be undesirable, but occasionally a misfit will be superior in some characteristic. Unfortunately, nature doesn't have referees to make life "fair", and the result is that a person who becomes a misfit because he has superior qualities can suffer from loneliness just as much as the misfit with inferior qualities simply because all misfits have trouble fitting in with other people.

The evolution of humans required a lot of misfits, and a lot of them must have suffered loneliness, abuse, and insults.

Modern humans can improve upon the situation. For example, instead of letting children torment the misfits, we can separate them into separate classes. Those misfit children can then be analyzed to determine why they are misfits, and their education can be adjusted accordingly.

The reason it is important for people to understand this concept is because teachers and parents will occasionally have a child who has a superior characteristic, such as a greater curiosity, but if they are unaware of this concept, they might assume that the child is badly behaved, and they might try to force him behave like other children, which would torment him. They might cause the child to become depressed, angry, rebellious, or suicidal.

Modern humans must stop trying to control people with insults, violence, punishments, and rehabilitation programs. We must analyze one another, and we must accept the fact that some people will be different from the majority. We should not tolerate abusive people, but we should tolerate people who are simply different from us.

We benefit from our differences, so we should learn to accept them. For example, we benefit by having some men who have the physical ability to do construction work, other men who are brave enough to fight the pedophile networks, other men who are capable of developing integrated circuits, and the people who are capable of creating music.

We also benefit by the differences between men and women. Instead of insulting one another, or trying to force ourselves to become unisex creatures, we should study, accept, and enjoy our differences.

We cannot prevent misfits, and we cannot prevent them from suffering, but we can demand that everybody exert enough self-control to refrain from tormenting them.

We can refrain from insulting them, and from giving them pity. We can push ourselves into treating them as people who are different, and accept them as one of the sad and unavoidable aspects of life. We can treat them in the same pleasant manner that we treat people who are left-handed, bald, or colorblind.

We cannot expect children to understand this concept, so the Schools Ministry is required to identify and separate the misfits from the other children so that they are not bullied throughout their childhood.